-'lililiiiiiilN' 


?:■,■:  r^ 

k 

BS  2385  .V45 

1899 

Vincent,  Marvin  R; 

ichardson, 

183A-1922. 

A  history  of 

the 

textual 

criticism  of  the 

New 

Neto  Erstament  J^antiljaofts 


EDITED  yBT 

SHAILER  ^MATHEWS 


A  HISTORY   OF 

THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE 
NEW   TESTAMENT 


f^cw  Cestamctit  Randboofes 

EDITED  BY  SHAILER  MATHEWS 

THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    CUICAGO 


A  series  of  volumes  presenting  briefly  and  intelligibly  the 
results  of  the  scientitic  study  of  the  New  Testament,  Each  vol- 
ume covers  its  own  field,  and  is  intended  for  the  general  reader  as 
well  as  the  special  student. 

Arrangements  have  been  made  for  the  following  volumes :  — 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE  NEW- 
TESTAMENT.  Professor  ISIarvin  R.  Vincent,  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  [lieady. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT.  Professor  Henry  S.  Nash,  Cambridge  Divinity 
School. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Professor  B.  Wisner  Bacon,  Yale  Divinity  School. 

THE  HISTORICAL  GEOGRAPHY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
Professor  J.  R.  S.  Sterrett,  Amherst  College. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  TIMES  IN  PALESTINE. 

Professor  Shailer  Mathews,  The  University  of  Chicago. 

[Ready. 
THE  LIFE  OF  PAUL.     President  Rush  Rhees,  The  University 
of  Rochester. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE.  Dr.  C.  W.  Votaw, 
The  University  of  Chicago. 

THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS.  Professor  George  B.  Stevens, 
Yale  Divinity  School. 

THE  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  Pro- 
fessor E.  P.  Gould.  [In  Preparation. 

THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  AND  MODERN  SOCIAL  PROB- 
LEMS. Professor  Francis  G.  Peabody,  Harvard  Divinity 
School. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE  UNTIL  EUSEBIUS. 
Professor  J.  W.  Platner,  Harvard  Divinity  School. 


A  HISTORY 


OF   THE 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 


BY 


/ 


MARVIN   R.   VINCENT,  D.D. 

BALDWIN  PROFESSOR  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT   EXEGESIS  AND 

LITERATURE  IN  UNION  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 

NEW  YORK 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON :  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
1899 

All  Hghts  reserved 


OOPYBIOHT,   1899, 

Bt  the  macmillan  company. 


NorfajootJ  l^ress 

J.  8.  Cuihing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  l  Smith 
Norwood  Matt.  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

This  volume  is  simply  what  its  title  imports,  —  a 
History  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  exhibit  its 
development  in  a  form  available  for  New  Testament 
students  who  have  not  given  special  attention  to  the 
subject,  and  to  direct  such  to  the  sources  for  more 
detailed  study,  if  they  are  so  inclined.  It  is  gathered 
from  sources  which  are  indicated  under  the  several 
topics  and  which  are  well  known  to  textual  scholars. 
The  great  interest  awakened  during  the  last  few  years 
by  the  special  discussions  of  the  Codex  Bezse  has  led 
me  to  assign  considerable  space  to  these,  and  the 
section  on  this  subject  has  been  prepared  for  this 
volume  by  my  valued  friend  and  colleague  and  former 
pupil,  the  Rev.  James  Everett  Frame  of  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary. 

MARVIN  R.  VINCENT. 


CONTENTS 


PAET  I 

NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER  I 

PAOE 

Need  and  Office  of  Textual  Criticism       ...        1 

Definition  of  a  Text  —  Distinction  between  a  Text 
and  a  Copy  —  An  Autograph  not  necessarily  faultless 

—  Errors  in  Written  Copies  and  their  Causes  —  Num- 
ber of  Variations  in  New  Testament  Text. 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament    ...        8 

Sources  of  Evidence  for  Restoration  of  New  Testa- 
ment Text  —  Uncials  —  Stichometry  —  Eusebian  Can- 
ons and  Ammonian  Sections  —  tItXol  and  K€<f)d\a.La  — 
Cursives — Mode  of  designating  Uncials  and  Cursives 

—  Lectionaries  —  Palimpsests  —  The    Five  Primary 
Uncials  —  Secondary  Uncials. 

CHAPTER  III 
Versions 24 

Importance  to   Textual   Criticism  —  Character  of 
their    Evidence  —  Latin   Versions :    (1)   Texts   pre- 
ceding   Jerome ;    (2)    Jerome    and    the    Vulgate  — 
Syriac    Versions:     (1)    Peshitto ;     (2)    Cuntonian ; 
vii 


VllI  CONTENTS 

PASH 

(3)  Lewis  Palimpsest  and  its  Relations  to  Other 
Syriac  Versions ;  (4)  Philoxenian  ;  (5)  Ilarclcan  ; 
(6)  Karkaphensian  —  Egyptian  Versions:  (1)  Mem- 
phitic ;  (2)  Thebaic ;  (3)  Bashmuric  —  Ethiopia, 
Armenian,  and  Gothic  Versions. 

CHAPTER   IV 

Patristic  Quotations 36 

Habits  of  Fathers  in  Quotation  —  Value  of  Patristic 
Quotations  and  Caution  in  Using. 


PART   II 

HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER   V 
Textual  Criticism  of  the  Early  Church    ...       42 

Early  Date  of  Corruptions  —  Allusions  to  Wilful 
Corruptions  in  the  Earlier  Apologists — Lack  of  Care 
in  Preparation  of  Manuscripts — Harmonies — Reasons 
for  Delay  in  the  Application  of  Printing  to  the  New 
Testament — History  of  the  Printed  Text  and  of  the 
Accompanying  Development  of  Textual  Criticism  falls 
into  Three  Periods  :  (1)  Period  of  the  Heign  of  the 
Textus  Receptus  (1516-1770)  ;  (2)  Transition  Period 
from  Textus  Receptus  to  Older  Uncial  Text  (1770- 
1830)  ;  (3)  Period  of  Dethronement  of  Textus  Re- 
ceptus and  Effort  to  restore  the  Oldest  and  Purest 
Text  by  Means  of  the  Genealogical  Method  (1830- 
1899). 

CHAPTER  VI 
First  Period  (1516-1770).     The  Complutensian  Polt- 

OLOT  AND  Erasmus's  Greek  Testament   .         .       48 
The    Complutensian  Polyglot :    (1)    History  ;    (2) 
Manuscripts  used  in  Preparation  of  —  Erasmus's  First 


CONTENTS  IX 

PJLGX 

Edition  of  the  Greek  Testament :  (1)  Manuscripts 
employed  ;  (2)  Four  Subsequent  Editions  —  Greek 
Testament  of  Colinseus. 

CHAPTER  VII 
First  Period  (1516-1770).     The  Textus  Receptus      .       56 

Robert  Stephen  —  The  Ten  Editions  of  Beza  —  The 
Antwerp  Polyglot  —  Attention  directed  to  Patristic 
Quotations:  (1)  Lucas  Brugensis ;  (2)  Hugo  Gro- 
tius  —  The  Paris  Polyglot  —  The  Elzevirs  —  Origin  of 
the  Term  "Textus  Receptus." 

CHAPTER  VIII 

First  Period  (1516-1770).     Beginnings  of  a  Critical 

Method 63 

New  Impulse  given  in  England  by  Cod.  A — In 
France  by  Simon  —  Walton's  Polyglot  and  its  Criti- 
cal Apparatus  —  Curcellseus's  Greek  Testament  — 
Fell's  Greek  Testament — Mill's  New  Testament  — 
Von  Maestricht,  Toinard,  "Wells  —  Richard  Bentley  : 
(1)  Glimpse  of  the  Genealogical  Method  ;  (2)  Bent- 
ley's  "Proposals;"  (3)  Collation  of  Manuscripts  of 
the  Vulgate;  (4)  Contents  of  the  "Proposals"  — 
William  Mace. 

CHAPTER   IX 

First    Period    (1516-1770).      Movement   toward   the 

Genealogical  Method 76 

Anticipatory  Statement  of  Certain  Principles  of 
Modern  Textual  Criticism  —  Bengel's  Greek  Testa- 
ment: (1)  Its  Characteristics;  (2)  Division  of  An- 
cient Documents  into  Families  —  J.  J.  Wetstein  : 
(1)  Prolegomena  published  anonymously  ;  (2)  Wet- 
stein's  Greek  Testament  —  Solomon  Semler — Review 
of  the  First  Period. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  X 


PAOK 


Second  Period  (1770-1830).  Transition  from  the 
Textus  Receptus  to  the  Older  Uncial  Text 
—  Griesbach 96 

Ed.  Harwood's  Greek  Testament  —  C.  F.  Matthsei 

—  F.  K.  Alter  —  Birch,  Adler,  Moldenhauer  and 
Tychsen  —  Slovenly  Work  of  Moldenhauer  and  Tych- 
sen  —  Griesbach:  (1)  His  First  Edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament ;  (2)  His  Critical  Materials ;  (3)  His 
"Symbolse  Criticte;"  (4)  Critical  Conditions  con- 
fronted by  him  ;  (5)  His  Classification  of  Families ; 
(6)  Some  of  his  Critical  Canons ;  (7)  His  Text  the 
Basis  of  the  Editions  of  Schott,  Marker,  Knapp,  Titt- 
mann,  Halm,  and  Theile  —  Hug — Scholz. 

CHAPTER  XI 

Second  Period  (1770-1830).  The  Successors  of  Gries- 
bach      105 

Hug  —  Scholz. 

CHAPTER  XII 

Third  Period  (1830-81).  Efforts  for  the  Restora- 
tion OF  THE  Primitive  Text  —  Lachmann        .     110 

Lachmann  :  (1)  First  Attempt  to  construct  a  Text 
directly  from  Ancient  Documents  ;  (2)  Editions  of 
his  Greek  Testament ;  (3)  Classification  of  Texts  ; 
(4)  His  Six  Rules  for  estimating  the  Comparative 
Weight  of  Readings;  (5)  Peculiarities  and  Faults; 
(6)  Table  of  some  of  his  Readings  compared  with 
those  of  Textus  Receptus  and  Westcott  and  Hort  — 
Work  of  Hahn,  Theile,  Bloomfield,  and  Others. 

CHAPTER  XIII 
Third  Period  (1830-81).     Tischendorf         .        .        .117 

His  Journeys  to  the  East  —  Di-scovery  of  Cod.  K 

—  Character  and  Value  of  this  Codex  —  Attempts  to 


CONTEXTS  XI 

PAex 
depreciate  it — The  "Editio  Octava  Critica  Major" 

—  Tischendoi-f's  Critical  Principles  —  Relative  Value 
of  Tischendorf's  Results, 

CHAPTER  XIV 
Third  Period  (1830-81).     Tregelles     .        .         .        .130 

Prospectus  of  Critical  Edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment—"  Account  of  the  Printed  Text" — Edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament  —  Introduced  the  Method  of 
"Comparative  Criticism"  —  His  Critical  Principles 

—  Tregelles  and  Tischendorf  compared  —  Alford. 

CHAPTER  XV 
Third  Period  (1830-81).     Reaction  toward  the  Tex- 

TUS    ReCEPTCS  —  SCRIVEXER   AXD   BuRGOX    .  .       139 

Scrivener  —  His  "New  Testament  according  to  the 
Text  of  the  Authorised  Version  with  Variations  of 
the  Revised  Version"  —  His  "Plain  Introduction  to 
the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament "  —  His  Critical 
Principles  —  Burgon  —  T.  S.  Green  —  W.  Kelly  — 
J.  B.  McClellan. 

CHAPTER   XVI 

Third  Period    (1830-81).      Westcott  and  Hort,  and 

Revisers'  Text  of  1881 145 

Their  Introduction  —  Their  Critical  Principles  — 
The  Genealogical  Method  —  Classification  of  Types 
of  Text  —  Criticisms  of  their  Work  —  The  Revised 
Version  of  1881. 

CHAPTER  XVn 
Recent  Contributions.     Weiss  —  Studies  in  Codex  D    167 

B.  Weiss's  "Neue  Testament"  —  Studies  in  the 
Codex  Bezse:  (1)  Theory  of  Latinisation  ;  (2)  Theory 


XU  CONTENTS 

PAQX 

of  Syriacisation  ;  (3)  Theory  of  Jewish-Christian  Ori- 
gin ;  (4)  Theory  of  Two  Editions  of  Acts  and  Luke  ; 
(6)  Fr.  Blass  ;  (6)  Theory  of  Weiss  ;  (7)  Theory  of 
Salmon — General  Review. 


APPENDIX 
Additional  Books  of  Reference 177 

Index 181 


A 

HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


9;^C 


PART  I 

NATUKE  Am  SOUKOES  OP  THE  TEXTUAL  ORITIOISM 
OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  NEED  AND  OFFICE  OF  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

Textual  Criticism  is  that  process  by  which  it  is  introduc- 
sought  to  determine  the  original  text  of  a  document  J°ong^®^"^' 
or  of  a  collection  of  documents,  and  to  exhibit  it,  freed 
from  all  the  errors,  corruptions,  and  variations  which 
it  may  have  accumulated  in  the  course  of  its  trans- 
mission by  successive  copyings. 

A  text  is  the  body  of  words  employed  by  an  author 
in  the  composition  of  a  document ;  as  by  Thucydides, 
in  his  History  of  the  Peloponnesian  War;  by  Dante  in 
the  Divina  Commedia ;  or  by  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans. 

The  word  "text"  is  also  applied  to  the  body  of 
words  which  constitutes  an  edition  of  an  original  doc- 
ument. Thus  we  speak  of  Lachmann's  text  of  Lucre- 
tius, or  of  Witte's  text  of  the  Divina  Commedia,  or 
of  Westcott  and  Hort^s  text  of  Romans  and  Galatians. 

B  1 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


The  original 
document 
not  neces- 
sarily with- 
out errors. 


These  editions  may  approximate  more  or  less  to  the 
texts  of  the  original  documents;  but  unless  they  ex- 
actly reproduce  those  texts,  they  are  not  the  texts  of 
Lucretius,  of  Dante,  or  of  Paul.  There  can  be  but  one 
text  of  a  document,  and  that  is  the  body  of  words 
written  by  the  author  himself.  The  text  of  a  docu- 
ment, accurately  speaking,  is  that  which  is  contained 
in  its  autograph. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  the  autograph  is  without 
error.  When  we  speak  of  the  original  text  of  a  docu- 
ment, we  mean  only  that  it  is  what  the  author  himself 
wrote,  including  whatever  mistakes  the  author  may 
have  made.  Every  autograph  is  likely  to  contain  such 
mistakes.  The  most  careful  writer  for  the  press,  on 
reading  his  work  in  print,  often  discov^ers  omissions  of 
words,  incomplete  sentences,  unconscious  substitutions 
of  other  words  for  those  which  he  had  intended  to 
write,  careless  constructions  which  make  his  meaning 
ambiguous,  or  unintentional  insertions  of  words  which 
materially  modify  the  sense  which  he  meant  to  con- 
vey. These  things  are  the  results  of  lapses  of  atten- 
tion or  memory,  or  of  temporary  diversions  of  thought. 
In  the  preparation  of  matter  for  the  press,  such  errors 
are  mostly  corrected  by  careful  proof-reading ;  but  be- 
fore the  invention  of  printing,  when  hand-copying  was 
the  only  means  of  publication,  they  were  much  more 
likely  to  be  perpetuated. 

It  is  entirely  possible  that  a  careful  transcription  of 
a  document  by  an  intelligent  and  accurate  scribe,  a 
transcription  in  which  the  errors  of  the  original  were 
corrected,  should  have  been  really  a  better  piece  of 
work  than  the  autograph  itself,  and,  on  the  whole, 
more  satisfactory  to  the  author :  only  the  revised  copy 
was  not  the  original  text. 

The  New  Testament  is  no  exception  to  this  rule. 
If  the  autographs  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  for  instance, 


the  textual 
critic. 


NEED  OF  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM  3 

should  be  recovered,  they  wouhl  no  doubt  be  found  to 
contain  errors  such  as  have  been  described.  "If  we 
consider  that  the  authors  themselves  or  their  amanu- 
enses in  dictation  may  have  made  mistakes,  and  that 
the  former,  in  revision,  may  have  introduced  improve- 
ments and  additions,  —  the  question  arises  whether 
the  text  ever  existed  in  complete  purity  at  all,  and 
in  what  sense"  (Reuss).^ 

The  problem  for  the  textual  critic  of  the  New  Tes-  Problem  for 
tament  grows  out  of  the  fact  that  the  New  Testament 
autographs  have  disappeared,  and  with  them  all  copies 
earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  The 
contents  of  the  original  manuscripts  can,  therefore, 
be  only  approximately  determined,  through  a  com- 
parison of  later  copies,  all  of  which  are  more  or  less 

1  Nothing  can  be  more  puerile  or  more  desperate  than  the 
effort  to  vindicate  the  divine  inspiration  of  Scripture  by  the 
assertion  of  the  verbal  inerrancy  of  the  autographs,  and  to  erect 
that  assertion  into  a  test  of  orthodoxy.    For  :  — 

1.  There  is  no  possible  means  of  verifying  the  assertion,  since 
the  autogTaphs  have  utterly  disappeared. 

2.  It  assumes  a  mechanical  dictation  of  the  ipsissima  verba 
to  the  writers,  which  is  contradicted  by  the  whole  character  and 
structure  of  the  Bible. 

3.  It  is  of  no  practical  value,  since  it  furnishes  no  means  of 
deciding  between  various  readings  or  discrepant  statements. 

4.  It  is  founded  upon  a  pure  assumption  as  to  the  character 
of  inspiration  —  namely,  that  inspiration  involves  verbal  iner- 
rancy, which  is  the  very  thing  to  be  proved,  and  which  could 
be  proved  only  by  producing  inerrant  autographs. 

5.  If  a  written,  inspired  revelation  is  necessary  for  mankind, 
and  if  such  a  revelation,  in  order  to  be  inspired,  must  be  ver- 
bally inerrant,  the  necessity  has  not  been  met.  There  is  no 
verbally  inerrant,  and  therefore  no  inspired,  revelation  in  writ- 
ing. The  autographs  have  vanished,  and  no  divine  guidance 
or  interposition  has  prevented  mistakes  in  transcription  or  in 
printing.  The  text  of  Scripture,  in  the  best  form  in  which 
critical  scholarship  can  exhibit  it,  presents  numerous  errors  and 
discrepancies. 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


An  early 
date  does 
uot  prove 
a  purer  text. 


Causes  of 
copy'sts' 
errors. 


faulty,  and  which  exhibit  iiiimerous  differences. 
These  copies  have  been  made  from  other  copies,  and 
these  in  turn  from  others.  The  critic  has  no  evidence 
that  any  copy  in  his  possession  has  been  made  directly 
from  the  original ;  or,  if  there  should  be  such  a  copy, 
which  one  it  is.  Pages  of  the  two  oldost  copies  known 
to  us  have  evidently  been  written  by  the  same  scribe, 
yet  their  differences  show  that  both  were  not  copied 
from  the  same  original.  From  the  fact  that  a  manu- 
script is  of  very  early  date,  it  cannot  be  assumed  that 
its  text  is  correspondingly  purer,  that  is,  more  nearly 
approaching  the  autograph.  It  must  first  be  settled 
how  many  copies  there  are  between  it  and  the  auto- 
graph, and  whether  it  followed  an  earlier  or  a  later 
copy,  and  whether  the  copy  which  it  followed  cor- 
rectly represented  the  autograph  or  not.  A  fourth- 
century  manuscript,  for  instance,  may  have  been  cop- 
ied from  one  only  a  few  years  earlier  than  itself; 
while  an  eleventh-century  manuscript  may  have  been 
copied  from  one  of  the  third  century,  and  that  in  turn 
from  the  autograph  ;  so  that  the  later  manuscript  may 
exhibit  a  purer  text  than  the  earlier.  Let  it  be  borne 
in  mind  that  the  critic  is  searching,  not  for  the  oldest 
manuscript,  but  for  the  oldest  text. 

In  the  multiplication  of  written  copies  errors  were 
inevitable.  Every  new  copy  was  a  new  source  of 
error,  since  a  copyist  was  likely  not  only  to  transcribe 
the  errors  of  his  exemplar,  but  also  to  make  additional 
mistakes  of  his  own.  These  errors  might  be  conscious 
or  unconscious,  intentional  or  unintentional.  A  scribe, 
for  example,  might  confuse  two  capital  letters  of  simi. 
lar  appearance,  as  G,  C  (t)  ;  0,  0.  Or  the  similarity 
of  two  letters  might  cause  him  to  overlook  the  one  and 
pass  directly  to  the  other,  as  TTPOeAOQN  for  TTPOC- 
GAOfiN.  Or  letters  might  be  transposed,  as  CPlAN 
(a-wT-qptav)  for  CPAIN  {(TtoTrjpa  Irjaovv).     Again,  if  two 


NEED  OF  TEXTUAL   CEITICI8M  5 

consecutive  lines  in  the  exemplar  ended  with  the  same 
word   or  syllable,  the   copyist's  eye  might  catch  the 
second  line  instead  of  the  first,  and  he  would  omit  the 
intermediate  words.     In  the  early  days  of  the  church 
many  copies  were  made  hurriedly,  and  mistakes  were  Careless- 
sure  to  arise  from  hasty  transcription.     So  long  as  the  °®^^" 
scribe  confined  himself  to  the  purely  mechanical  work 
of  copying,  the  errors  would  be  chiefly  those  of  sight, 
hearing,  or  memory  ;  when  he  began  to  think  for  him- 
self, more  mischief  was  done.     The  working  of  his 
own  mind  on  the  subject  might  move  him  to  introduce 
a  word  which  did  not  appear  in  his  exemplar.     He 
might  find  in  the  margin  of  his  exemplar  some  oral 
tradition,  like  the  story  of  the  angel  who  troubled  the 
pool  of  Bethzatha ;  or  some  liturgical  fragment,  like 
the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer ;  or  some  explana-  Interpola- 
tory   comment,   and   incorporate  these  into  the  text.    ^^^' 
There  were  many  who  would  have  the  books  of  ap- 
proved authors  in  a  fuller  rather  than  in  a  shorter 
form,  through  fear  of  losing  something  of  what  the 
author   had  said.      Bengel   remarks,   "Many  learned 
men  are  not  easily  persuaded  to  regard  anything  as 
superfluous."     Person  ^  says  that,  so  far  from  its  being 
an  affected  or  absurd  idea  that  a  marginal  note  can 
ever  creep  into  the  text,  it  has  actually  happened  in 
millions  of  places.     Again,  a  scribe  might  alter  a  text  Deliberate 
in  one  Gospel  in  order  to  make  it  conform  to  a  parallel  *  ®^*  ^°"' 
passage  in  another  ;  or  he  might  change  an  unclassical 
word  or  expression  for  a  more  classical  one.     Such 
things  would  be  fruitful  sources  of  variation.^ 

1  Letters  to  Travis. 

2  The  causes  of  variation  will  be  found  treated  in  detail  in 
Scrivener's  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament, 
4th  ed.,  I,  7-19.  Also  in  Schaff's  Companion  to  the  Greek 
Testament,  183,  and  the  excellent  little  treatise  of  C.  E.  Ham- 
mond, Textual  Criticism  Applied  to  the  New  Testament. 


6 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Number  of 
actual  vari- 
atiuDS. 


Mode  of 
counting  va- 
riations. 


It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  task  of  the  text- 
ual critic  is  no  easy  one.  As  early  as  1707,  Dr.  Mill 
estimated  the  number  of  variations  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment text  at  30,000 ;  but  this  estimate  was  based  on 
a  comparatively  few  manuscripts.  To-day,  the  num- 
ber of  Greek  manuscripts  discovered  and  catalogued, 
and  containing  the  whole  or  portions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  estimated  at  3829,  and  the  number  of  actual 
variations  in  existing  documents  is  reckoned  roughly 
from  150,000  to  200,000.i 

This,  however,  does  not  mean  that  there  is  that 
number  of  places  in  the  New  Testament  where  various 
readings  occur.  It  merely  represents  the  sum  total  of 
various  readings,  each  variation  being  counted  as 
many  times  as  it  appears  in  different  documents. 
For  instance,  taking  some  given  standard  and  com- 
paring a  number  of  documents  with  it,  we  find  at  one 
place  in  the  first  document  compared  four  variations 
from  the  standard.  In  the  second  document,  at  the 
same  place,  we  find  three  of  these  variations  repeated, 
and  two  more  which  are  not  in  the  first  document. 
We  count,  then,  nine  variations;  that  is,  the  three 
variations  common  to  the  two  documents  are  counted 
twice.  In  a  third  document,  in  the  same  place,  we 
find  all  of  the  last  three  and  two  new  ones.  This 
gives  us  fourteen  in  all,  the  three  being  counted  over 
again,  and  so  on  through  any  number  of  documents. 
In  other  words,  "  Each  place  where  a  variation  occurs 
is  counted  as  many  times  over,  not  only  as  distinct 
variations  occur  upon  it,  but  also  as  the  same  variation 
occurs  in  different  manuscripts."  ^  The  sum  total  of 
these  variations,  moreover,  includes  even  the  unique 

1  See  Nestle,  Einfiihrung  in  das  Griechische  Neue  Testa- 
ment^ 23. 

2  Dr.  Warfield,  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Nexo  Testament^ 
13. 


NEED  OF  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM  7 

reading  of  a  single  inferior  document  and  the  trifling 
variations  in  spelling.^ 

The  work  of  the  textual  critic  is  to  push  back,  as  Work  and 
nearly  as  possible,  to  the  author's  own  draft,  and  to  the  textual 
present  the  ipsissima  verba  of  his  text.     His  method  critic, 
is  to  trace  the  various  readings  to  their  sources,  to 
date  and  classify  the  sources,  to  ascertain  which  of 
these  classes  or  families  most  nearly  approaches  the 
autograph,  and  to  weigh  the  reasons  which  are  most 
likely  to  have  determined  different  readings.^ 

1  The  vagt  number  of  variations  furnishes  no  cause  for  alarm 
to  the  devout  reader  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  the  natural 
result  of  the  great  number  of  documentary  sources.  A  very 
small  proportion  of  the  variations  materially  affects  the  sense, 
a  much  smaller  proportion  is  really  important,  and  no  variation 
affects  an  article  of  faith  or  a  moral  precept.  Dr.  Hort  reckons 
the  amount  of  what  can,  in  any  sense,  be  called  substantial 
variation,  as  hardly  more  than  a  thousandth  part  of  the  entire 
text.  (See  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testament,  Introduc- 
tion, 2.) 

2  "It  is  quite  likely  that  some  of  the  variations  may  have 
been  due  to  changes  introduced  by  the  author  himself  into 
copies  within  his  reach,  after  his  manuscript  had  gone  into 
circulation.  These  copies,  circulating  independently  of  those 
previously  issued,  would  become  the  parents  of  a  new  family 
of  copies,  and  would  originate  diversities  from  the  original 
manuscript  without  any  fault  on  the  part  of  the  transcribers  " 
(Scrivener,  Introduction,  etc.,  I,  18,  note). 


CHAPTER   II 
THE  MANUSCRIPTS  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT 


All  extant 
New  Testa- 
ment manu- 
scripts 
written  on 
vellum. 


Uncials. 


The  evidence  by  which  the  New  Testament  text  is 
examined  and  restored  is  gathered  from  three  sources : 
Manuscripts,  Versions,  and  Patristic  Quotations. 

The  earliest  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  writ- 
ten on  papyrus,  have  all  perished,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  scraps,  not  earlier  than  the  earliest  vellum 
manuscripts.  All  the  extant  manuscripts  are  written 
on  vellum  or  parchment.  Vellum  was  made  from  the 
skins  of  young  calves ;  the  common  parchment  from 
those  of  sheep,  goats,  or  antelopes. 

The  extant  Greek  manuscripts  are  mostly  of  late 
date,  and  contain  only  portions  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  of  two  classes:  Uncials,  or  Majuscules,  and 
Cursives,  or  Minuscules. 

Uncials  are  written  in  capital  letters.  Each  letter  is 
formed  separately,  and  there  are  no  divisions  between 
the  words.^  In  form,  these  manuscripts  resemble 
printed  books,  varying  in  size  from  large  folio  to  octavo, 
and  smaller.  The  pages  contain  one  or  two,  rarely  three 
or  four,  columns.     Breathings  and  accents  very  rarely 

1  The  word  " uncial''  is  derived  from  nncia,  meaning  the 
twelfth  part  of  anything;  hence,  "an  ounce,"  "an  inch."  It 
does  not  mean  that  the  letters  were  an  inch  in  length.  There 
are  very  small  uncials,  as  on  the  papyrus  rolls  of  Herculaneum. 
The  term  is  commonly  traced  to  Jerome  (preface  to  Job) :  "  Un- 
cialibus,  ut  vulgo  aiunt,  litteris,  onera  magis  exarata,  quam 
codices."  It  is  thought  by  some,  however,  that  Jerome  wrote 
"  initialibus  "  instead  of  "  uncialibus. " 

8 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  9 

occur,  unless  inserted  by  a  later  hand.  In  the  earliest 
manuscripts  punctuation  is  confined  to  a  single  point  Punctuation 
here  and  there  on  a  level  with  the  top  of  the  letters,  and  omet^ry^^' 
occasionally  a  small  break,  with  or  without  the  point, 
to  denote  a  pause  in  the  sense.  Later,  the  single  point 
is  found  indiscriminately  at  the  head,  middle,  or  foot 
of  the  letter.  In  the  year  458  Euthalius,  a  deacon  of 
Alexandria,  published  an  edition  of  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  and  soon  after  of  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles, 
written  stichometrically,  that  is,  in  single  lines  contain- 
ing only  so  many  words  as  could  be  read,  consistently 
with  the  sense,  at  a  single  inspiration.^  This  mode  of 
writing  was  used  long  before  in  copying  the  poetical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  involved,  however, 
a  great  waste  of  parchment,  so  that,  in  manuscripts 
of  the  New  Testament,  it  was  superseded  after  a  few 
centuries  by  punctuation-marks.  Divisions  of  the  text 
were  early  made  for  various  purposes.  In  the  third  Harmonistic 
century  Ammonius  of  Alexandria  prepared  a  Harmony 
of  the  Gospels,  taking  the  text  of  Matthew  as  the  basis, 

1  Thus  1  Cor.  10  :  23-26,  stichometrically  in  English,  would 
read  as  follows:  — 

All  things  are  lawful  for  me 
but  all  things  are  not  expedient 
all  things  are  lawful  for  me 
but  all  things  edify  not 
let  no  man  his  own  seek 
("seek,"  ^TjTeiTu,  divided  because  of  lack 
of  space,  and  Tftrw  forms  a  line  by  itself) 
but  that  of  the  other 
every  thing  that  in  the  shambles  is 
sold  (^rru\ovfji€Pov  divided) 
eat  nothing  ask- 
ing for  the  sake  of  the 
conscience 

for  the  Lord's  is  the  earth  {Kvpiov  abbreviated,  kv.)  and  the  ful- 
ness of  it. 


divisions. 


10 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Eixsebian 
sections  and 
canons. 


Notation  of 
canons. 


and  placing  by  its  side  in  parallel  columns  the  similar 
passages  in  the  other  Gospels.  This,  of  course, destroyed 
the  continuity  of  their  narrative.  Euse])ius  of  Caesarea, 
in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century,  availing  him- 
self of  the  work  of  Ammonius,  devised  a  method 
of  comparing  the  parallel  passages  not  open  to  this 
objection.  He  divided  the  text  of  each  Gospel  into 
sections,  the  length  of  which  was  determined  solely 
by  their  relation  of  parallelism  or  similarity  to  pas- 
sages in  one  or  more  of  the  other  Gospels,  or  by  their 
having  no  parallel.  Thus,  Section  8  of  Matthew  con- 
tains one  verse.  Matt.  3  :  3.  This  is  parallel  with  Sec.  2 
of  Mark  (Mk.  1  :  3),  Sec.  7  of  Luke,  (Luke  3  :  3-6), 
Sec.  10  of  John  (J.  1 :  23).  Again,  Sec.  5  of  Luke 
(L.  2  ;  48-52)  has  no  parallel. 

These  sections  were  then  numbered  consecutively 
in  the  margin,  and  distributed  into  ten  tables  or 
canons.  Canon  I  contained  the  sections  correspond- 
ing in  the  four  Gospels ;  Canon  II  the  sections  corre- 
sponding in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke;  Canon  III, 
Matthew,  Luke,  John;  Canon  IV,  Matthew,  Mark, 
John.  Then  canons  of  the  sections  corresponding  in 
two  Gospels.  Canon  V,  Matthew  and  Luke ;  Canon  VI, 
Matthew  and  Mark  ;  Canon  VII,  Matthew  and  John  ; 
Canon  VIII,  Mark  and  Luke;  Canon  IX,  Luke  and 
(John;  Canon  X,  sections  peculiar  to  one  Gospel  only. 

Under  the  number  of  each  section  in  the  margin  of 
the  several  Gospels,  which  sections  were  numbered  in 
black  ink,  there  was  written  in  red  ink  the  number  of 
the  canon  to  which  it  belonged.  These  were  tabu- 
lated.    Suppose,  for  instance,  we  find  in  the  margin 

of  Matt.  4:1,  —,  =  ^'  that  is  to  say  the  16th  sec- 
tion may  be  found  in  the  2d  canon.  Turning  to  this 
canon,  we  find  that  the  15th  section  in  Matthew  corre- 
sponds to  the  6th  section  in  Mark  and  the  16th  in 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  11 

Luke.  Turning  to  the  margins  of  Mark  and  Luke, 
we  find  that  Sec.  6  in  Mark  is  Mark  1 :  12,  and  Sec.  15 
in  Luke  is  Luke  4  : 1.  Thus  the  harmony  is  :  Matt. 
4:1;  Mk.  1:12;  Luke  4  : 1. 

The  earliest  manuscript  in  which  the  Eusebian  sec-  Earliest  oc- 
tions   and   canons   are  found  is   the  Sinaitic,  where  eauons*!^  ^^ 
they  were  added,  according  to  Tischendorf,  by  a  very 
early  hand.     They  are  found  also  in  Codex  A.     Some 
manuscripts  have  the  sections  without  the  canons.-^ 

Another  ancient  mode  of  division,  ascribed  by  some 
to  Tatian,  the  harmonist,  is  the  division  of  the  Gospels 
into  chapters  called  tltXol,  because  a  title  or  summary  "Titles." 
of  the  contents  of  each  chapter  is  appended  to  the 
numeral  which  designates  it.  A  table  of  these 
chapters  was  usually  prefixed  to  each  Gospel.  It  is 
noticeable  that,  in  each  of  the  Gospels,  the  designa- 
tion and  enumeration  begins  with  what  should  be  the 
second  section.  Thus,  the  first  title  in  Matthew  begins 
with  the  second  chapter,  and  is  prefaced  with  the 
words  Trept  tcuv  /xaywv  (about  the  Magi).  In  Mark  the 
first  title  begins  at  1 :  23,  ttc/oi  tov  Sat/xovt^o/xevov  (about 
the  man  possessed  with  a  demon).  In  Luke,  at  2  : 1, 
Trepi  Tr}<i  a7roypa(f>r)s  (about  the  enrolment).  In  John,  at 
2  : 1,  TTcpt  TOV  €v  Kava  yafxov  (about  the  marriage  in 
Cana).  The  reason  for  this  is  not  apparent.  It  has 
been  suggested  that,  in  the  first  copies,  the  titles  at 
the  head  of  each  Gospel  were  reserved  for  specially 
splendid  illumination  and  were  forgotten;  but  this 
would  not  explain  why  the  second  chapter  was 
numbered  as  the  first. 

There  may  also  be  noticed  a  division  of  the  Acts   Chapters. 

1  The  original  authority  on  this  subject  is  the  Epistle  of 
Eusebius  to  Carpianus,  which  may  be  found  in  Tischendorf' s 
Neio  Testament.  Ill,  145.  The  canons  of  Eusebius  are  tabu- 
lated in  Bagster's  large  type  Greek  Testament,  and  the  refer- 
ences to  them  are  noted  in  the  margin  of  the  text. 


12 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


and  Epistles  into  Kce^oAaia  or  chapters,  to  answer  the 
same  purpose  as  the  tlt\ol  of  the  Gospels.     These  are 
!  of  later  date  and  of  uncertain  origin.     They  do  not 

occur  in  A  and  C  (fifth  century),  which  exhibit  the 
TiVAot,  the  sections,  and  one  of  them  (A)  the  canons. 

They  are  sometimes  connected  with  the  name  of  Eu- 
thalius,  deacon  of  Alexandria,  the  reputed  author  of 
the  system  of  stichometry.     That  he  used  them  is  cer- 
tain, but  he  probably  derived  them  from  some  one  else. 
Modern  ^"^   present   division   into   chapters   is  commonly 

division  into  ascribed  to  Cardinal  Hugo,  a  Dominican  monk  of  the 
ap  ers.        thirteenth  century,  who  used  it  for  his  Concordance 
of  the  Latin  Vulgate.     There  are  better  grounds  for 
ascribing  it  to  Stephen  Langton,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury (ob.  1228). 

The  presence  or  absence  of  these  divisions  is  im- 
portant in  determining  the  date  of  a  manuscript. 
Thus,  in  seeking  to  fix  the  date  of  the  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus,  the  absence  of  the  Euthalian  divisions  of  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  would  point  to  a  date  not  later  than 
the  middle  of  the  fifth  century ;  while  the  insertion  of 
the  Eusebian  Canons  would  lead  us  to  assign  a  date 
not  earlier  than  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.^ 
Cursive  manuscripts  are  written  in  smaller  letters, 
in  a  running  hand,  the  letters  being  connected  and  the 
words  separated.  In  the  earliest  cursives  the  system 
of  punctuation  closely  resembles  that  of  printed  books. 
Uncial  manuscripts  are  the  earlier,  from  the  fourth 
to  the  ninth  century ;  while  cursives  range  from  the 
ninth  to  the  fifteenth.     Some  cursives  are  older  than 


Significance 
of  these 
divisions  to 
criticism. 


Cursives. 


1  For  divisions  of  the  text,  see  article  "Bible  Text,"  in  the 
Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopoedia,  by  0.  von  Gebhardt,  revised  and 
largely  rewritten  by  Ezra  Abbot.  On  stichometry,  two  articles 
by  J.  Rendel  Harris,  American  Juurnal  of  Philology,  1883,  p.  31, 
and  Stichometry,  1893.  See  also  Scrivener,  Introduction,  etc., 
I,  60-67. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  13 

some  uncials.  In  papyrus  manuscripts,  however, 
uncial  and  cursive  writing  are  found  side  by  side 
from  the  earliest  times  at  which  Greek  writing  is 
known  to  us,  the  third  century  b.c.  In  the  ninth 
century  an  ornamental  style  of  running  hand  was  in- 
vented, which  superseded  the  use  of  uncials  in  books. 
As  a  general  rule,  the  upright,  square,  and  simple 
uncials  indicate  an  earlier  date.  Narrow,  oblong, 
slanting  characters,  ornamentation,  and  initial  letters 
of  larger  size  than  the  rest,  are  marks  of  later  date. 

The   following    are   specimens    of    cursive    manu- 
scripts :  — 

Codex  Burney,  13th  century.    John  21 :  18. 

y V  *  ^C"^,  ®  "^  •*  ■'^  i  **  *'^'**^  •^  ***  ^  ^*'XV  *  V . 
TvuA  H  AAJkfiaxjuj  €txfrw(\0Lrr^y^»JOLnrtl<njLevt' 

Copy  of  Pauline  Epistles,  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge, 
12th  century.    Rom.  5  :  21-6  :  7. 


14 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Before  the  books  were  gathered  into  one  collection, 
they  were  arranged  in  four  groups  :  Gospels,  Acts  and 
Catholic  Epistles,  Pauline  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse. 
Most  manuscripts  contain  only  one,  or  at  most  two,  of 
these  groups.  For  the  purpose  of  reference,  uncials 
are  distinguished  by  capital  letters  of  the  Latin,  Greek, 
or  Hebrew  alphabets,  as  B,  A,  K.  Cursives  are  desig- 
nated simply  by  numbers,  as  Evan.  100,  signifying 
^^  cursive  manuscript  of  the  Gospels,  No.  100."  If 
a  cursive  manuscript  contains  more  than  one  of  the 
groups  above  mentioned,  it  appears  in  different  lists, 
and  with  a  different  number  in  each.  Thus,  a  cursive 
of  the  fourteenth  century,  in  the  British  Museum, 
containing  all  the  four  groups,  is  described  as  Evan. 
498,  Acts  198,  P.  255,  Ap.  97.  An  uncial  like  «, 
whose  readings  run  through  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment, is  quoted  everywhere  by  the  same  letter;  but 
B,  in  which  the  Apocalypse  is  wanting,  is  assigned  to 
the  Codex  Basilianus  of  the  Apocalypse  (Bg).  D,  in 
the  Gospels  and  Acts,  designates  Codex  Bezse;  but 
in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  Codex  Claromontanus  (Dg). 
The  cursive  manuscripts,  with  a  few  exceptions,  are 
rarely  quoted  as  authorities  for  the  text.  Their 
importance  is  chiefly  in  showing  which  of  two  read- 
ings, where  the  leading  uncials  are  divided,  has  been 
adopted  in  the  great  mass  of  later  copies. 

In  the  whole  number  of  manuscripts  must  be  in- 
cluded the  Lectionaries.  The  ordinary  manuscripts 
were  often  adapted  for  church  service  by  marking  the 
beginning  and  end  of  each  lesson  with  a  note  in  the 
margin,  indicating  the  time  and  occasion  for  reading 
it,  and  by  prefixing  to  them  a  Synaxarion,  or  table  of 
lessons  in  their  order;  sometimes  silso  sl  Menologion, 
or  calendar  of  the  immovable  festivals  and  the  saints' 
days,  with  their  appropriate  lessons.  Separate  collec- 
tions were  also  made  of  lessons  from  the  New  Testa- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  15 

ment  prescribed  to  be  read  during  the  church  year. 
These  lessons  are  arranged  in  chronological  order, 
without  regard  to  their  places  in  the  New  Testament, 
like  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  Lectionaries  containing  lessons  from  the 
Gospels  were  called  cmyyeXto-rapia  or,  popularly, 
cvayycAta.  Those  containing  lessons  from  the  Acts 
and  Epistles  were  termed  d-n-oaToXoL  or  Trpa^aTroaroXoi. 
A  few,  containing  lessons  from  both  the  Gospels  and  the 
Acts  and  Epistles,  were  styled  dTroa-ToAoewyyeAta.  The 
uncial  character  was,  in  some  cases,  retained  in  these 
collections,  after  cursive  writing  had  become  common, 
so  that  it  is  not  always  easy  to  fix  their  date  without 
other  indications ;  but  the  most  of  the  Lectionaries 
are  in  the  cursive  character.  There  are  no  extant 
Lectionaries  in  Greek  earlier  than  the  eighth  century, 
or  earlier  than  the  sixth  century  in  Syriac ;  but  the 
lectionary  system  is  much  older.  Their  evidence  is 
especially  important  in  determining  the  canonicity 
of  a  passage,  since  it  is  the  evidence,  not  of  individ- 
uals, but  of  churches,  and  shows  that  the  church  in  a 
certain  district  believed  the  passage  to  be  a  part  of 
inspired  Scripture. 

As  parchment  was  a  costly  material,  an  old  manu- 
script was  often  used  for  the  second  time,  the  original 
writing  being  erased  by  means  of  a  sponge,  a  knife, 
or  a  piece  of  pumice-stone,  and  new  matter  written 
over  it.  Such  manuscripts  are  called  Palimpsests,  or 
Codices  Rescripti.  A  parchment  was  sometimes  used 
three  times  over.^  It  has  been  found  possible,  by  the 
application  of  chemicals,  to  restore  the  letters  of  the 
original  manuscript.  A  notable  instance  is  the  restora-  A  notable 
tion  of  Codex  Ephraemi  (C),  in  the  National  Library  Palimpsest. 
at  Paris,  in  which  the  works  of  the  Syrian  Father, 

1  See  Scrivener,  Introduction,  etc.,  I,  141, 


16  TEXTUAL   CBITICI8M 

Ephraem,  were  written  over  the  original  New  Testa- 
ment text.  The  original  writing  was  brought  to  light 
by  the  librarian,  Carl  Hase,  in  1834-35,  by  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Giobertine  tincture  (prussiate  of  potash). 
It  was  edited  by  Tischendorf  in  1843-45.^ 

We  shall  notice  the  five  primary  uncials,  so  called 

from  their  age  and  importance. 

Codex  Sinai-       Codex  Sinaiticus  ()<)  :  probably  about  the  middle  of 

ticus  (n).       ^YiQ  fourth  century.     Now  in  the  Imperial  Library  at 

St.  Petersburg.    It  was  discovered  by  Tischendorf  in 

1859,  in  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mt.  Sinai. 

The  following  is  Tischendorf's  own  description  of 
the  discovery.  "  On  the  afternoon  of  this  day  (Feb. 
7,  1859)  I  was  taking  a  walk  with  the  steward  of  the 
convent  in  the  neighborhood,  and  as  we  returned 
toward  sunset,  he  begged  me  to  take  some  refresh- 
The  story  of  ment  with  him  in  his  cell.  Scarcely  had  he  entered 
covery.  *^^®  room  when,  resuming  our  former  subject  of  con- 

versation, he  said, '  And  I,  too,  have  read  a  Septuagint ; ' 
and  so  saying  he  took  down  from  the  corner  of  the  room 
a  bulky  kind  of  volume  wrapped  up  in  a  red  cloth, 
and  laid  it  before  me.  I  unrolled  the  cover,  and  dis- 
covered, to  my  great  surprise,  not  only  those  very 
fragments  which,  fifteen  years  before,  I  had  taken  out 
of  the  basket,  but  also  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  New  Testament  complete,  and,  in  addition, 
the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  a  part  of  the  Pastor  of 

1  On  palimpsests,  see  Scrivener,  Introduction,  etc.,  I,  25, 
141;  Tischendorf,  New  Testament,  III,  366;  Mrs.  Agnes  Lewis, 
The  Four  Gospels  translated  from  the  Sinaitic  Palimpsest. 
For  a  full  description  of  the  New  Testament  manuscripts,  the 
reader  will  consult  the  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's  larger 
eighth  edition  of  his  Greek  Testament,  in  the  third  volume, 
prepared  by  Dr.  Caspar  R.  Gregory,  and  Scrivener's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Criticism  of  the  Neio  Testament,  I.  A  compendious 
description  will  be  found  in  the  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopcxdia, 
article  "Bible  Text,"  by  von  Gebhardt. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  17 

Hermas.  Full  of  joy,  which  this  time  I  had  the  self- 
command  to  conceal  from  the  steward  and  the  rest  of 
the  community,  I  asked,  as  if  in  a  careless  way,  for 
permission  to  take  the  manuscript  into  my  sleeping- 
chamber  to  look  it  over  more  at  leisure.  ...  I  knew 
that  I  held  in  my  hand  the  most  precious  biblical 
treasure  in  existence  —  a  document  whose  age  and  im- 
portance exceeded  that  of  all  the  manuscripts  which 
I  had  ever  examined  during  twenty  years'  study  of 
the  subject.  .  .  .  Though  my  lamp  was  dim  and 
the  night  cold,  I  sat  down  at  once  to  transcribe  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas.  For  two  centuries  search  has 
been  made  in  vain  for  the  original  Greek  of  the  first 
part  of  this  Epistle,  which  has  been  known  only 
through  a  very  faulty  Latin  translation.  And  yet  this 
letter,  from  the  end  of  the  second  dow  n  to  the  beginning 
of  the  fourth  century,  had  an  extensive  authority, 
since  many  Christians  assigned  to  it  and  to  the  Pastor 
of  Hermas  a  place  side  by  side  with  the  inspired 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  This  was  the  very 
reason  why  these  two  writings  were  both  thus  bound 
up  with  the  Sinaitic  Bible,  the  transcription  of  which 
is  to  be  referred  to  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century 
and  about  the  time  of  the  first  Christian  emperor."  "^ 

The  New  Testament  text  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex  is  Character  of 
complete.  The  original  text  has  been  corrected  in  *  ®  ^°  ®^" 
many  places.  The  Eusebian  sections  are  indicated 
in  the  margin  of  the  Gospels  in  a  hand  evidently  con- 
temporaneous with  the  text.  The  Codex  is  13i  inches 
broad  by  14J  inches  high,  and  consists  of  346|-  leaves 
of  beautiful  vellum,  of  which  199  contain  portions 
of  the  Septuagint  Version,  and  147 J  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  fragment  of 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.     Each  page  has  four  col- 

1  See  further  under  Tischendorf  in  the  history  of  the  printed 
text. 


18  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

umns,  with  forty-eight  lines  in  each  column.  The 
poetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  being  written 
stichometrically,  admit  of  only  two  columns  on  a  page. 
In  the  order  of  the  books,  Paul's  Epistles  precede  the 
Acts.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  stands  with  the 
Pauline  letters  and  follows  2  Thessalonians.  There 
are  no  breathings  or  accents,  and  marks  of  punctuation 
are  scanty.  Words  are  divided  at  the  end  of  a  line, 
as  the  K  from  ov  in  ovk.  The  numerous  corrections  which 
disfigure  the  Codex  are  mostly  due  to  later  hands  of 
the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries  and  later.  A  few 
appear  to  have  been  made  by  the  original  scribe. 
Codex  Vati-  Codex  Vaticamis  (B).  Fourth  century.  Generally 
canus  (B).  i-egarded  as  slightly  older  than  K.  It  is  in  the  Vatican 
Library  at  Rome.  Contains  the  Septuagint  Version 
of  the  Old  Testament,  with  some  gaps,  and  the  New 
Testament  to  Hebrews  9 :  14,  inclusive.  The  Pas- 
toral Epistles,  Philemon,  and  the  Apocalypse  are  lost. 
The  Catholic  Epistles  had  followed  the  Acts.  It  is  a 
quarto  volume,  arranged  in  quires  of  five  sheets  or  ten 
leaves  each,  and  is  written  on  thin  vellum  made  of 
the  skins  of  antelopes.  It  is  10^  inches  high,  10 
inches  broad,  and  4^  thick.  It  has  three  columns 
to  a  page,  except  in  the  poetical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  are  written  stichometrically,  and  in 
which  there  are  two  columns  to  a  page.  Its  antiquity 
is  attested  by  the  absence  of  divisions  into  Ke(f>dKaLa 
and  of  sections  and  canons,  instead  of  which  it  has  a 
scheme  of  chapters  or  sections  of  its  own,  which  seem 
to  have  been  formed  for  the  purpose  of  reference.  A 
Divisions  of  new  section  always  begins  where  there  is  some  break 
the  text  in  g  ^^  ^^^q  sense,  and  many  of  those  in  the  Gospels  consist 
of  but  one  of  our  modern  verses.  The  Gospel  of 
Matthew  contains  170  of  these  divisions,  Mark  62, 
Luke  152,  and  John  80.  In  the  Acts  are  two  sets  of 
sections,  thirty-six  longer  and  in  an  oldOT  hand,  sixty- 


nn>: 


<  Z  < 


it 


1  -.  : 


<  Y  ::?  0  < 

V  .-    -  .^  r 


u  r 


w  (J 


I 

h  ^  f 

t3  Z  t^ 


orii 


^    Z 


^t 


^    % 


<    'J 


^1 


c  -< 


w  "^  "^ 


z 
< 


-<  -  5 


r  < 


N  >  5  d  c ; 


J  z 


■      w   •      T     .    r     _.    ^    -/ 


■e-'T  C  <^r 


-  3: 


>  ^  S  -  r 


•<>     ^     I     ~     ^ 


<  zz 

:/.  'w-  w 


h  ^  ^--^ 


9 

I 


-,   ft-  I"   ^    ^ 

r  ■<  'i  =  5 


^i^' 


I  - 


-  7  •<  :> 


?.=  ?,:<???  5 


I  I  2  <'^ 
+^ 


2  Z 


^  T  -   - 
-<   C  T  :-   - 

^  -  c  r  - 
<    r  c- 


rwC'ri£^r;^u<rz~::2>l 
^-<^z>-.~z^r-<2rrTZ 


~  ^  ^  >- 


2  i  t  ^  -  ^i^  y  ^r  «- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  19 

nine  smaller  and  more  recent.  Each  of  these  also 
begins  after  a  break  in  the  sense ;  but  they  are  quite 
independent  of  each  other,  as  a  larger  section  will 
sometimes  commence  in  the  middle  of  a  smaller,  the 
latter  not  being  a  subdivision  of  the  former.  In  the 
Catholic  Epistles  and  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  there  are 
two  sets  of  sections,  but  in  the  Epistles  the  older  sec- 
tions are  the  more  numerous.  The  breathings  and 
accents  have  been  added  by  a  later  hand,  according 
to  Tischendorf  and  Hort,  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh 
century.  This  hand  appears  to  have  traced  the  faint 
lines  of  the  original  writing;  and  the  writer,  being 
anxious  at  the  same  time  to  represent  a  critical  re- 
vision of  the  text,  left  untouched  such  words  or  letters 
as  he  wished  to  reject.  These  untouched  places  enable 
us  to  see  the  Codex  in  its  primitive  condition. 

Attempts  to  examine  and  collate  this  codex  were  Editions 
for  many  years  baffled  by  the  custodians  of  the  Vatican  °^  ^• 
Library  and  the  authorities  of  the  Roman  Church.^ 
Roman  Catholic  scholars  undertook  the  work  which 
they  refused  to  allow  others  to  do.  An  edition  by 
Cardinal  Mai  was  issued  in  1857,  but  it  was  full  of 
faults,  so  that  it  never  could  be  used  with  confidence. 
A  grudging  and  limited  permission  to  Tischendorf  to 
consult  the  Codex  enabled  him  to  issue,  in  1867,  an 
edition  superior  to  any  that  had  preceded  it.  The 
edition  of  the  ISTew  Testament  by  Vercellone  and 
Cozza  appeared  in  1868,  and  was  complete  and  criti- 
cal, though  not  without  errors.  A  splendid  edition 
was  issued  in  1889,  under  the  care  of  Abbate  Cozza- 
Luzi,  in  which  the  entire  text  was  exhibited  in  photo- 
graph. 

Codex  Alexandrinus    (A).     Fifth  century.     In  the  Codex  Alex- 
British  Museum,  where  it  was  placed  at  the  founda-  andrinus 

1  See  under  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles  in  the  history  of  the 
printed  text. 


20 


TEXTUAL   CBJTICISM 


Character  of 
the  codex. 


Capitaliza 
tion  and 
divisions 
of  A. 


tion  of  the  library  of  that  institution  in  1753,  having 
previously  belonged  to  the  king's  private  collection 
from  the  year  1628,  when  it  was  sent  by  Cyril  Lucar, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  as  a  gift  to  Charles  I. 
An  old  Arabic  inscription  on  the  first  leaf  states  that 
it  was  written  by  the  hand  of  Thecla  the  Martyr. 
The  Codex  is  bound  in  four  volumes,  three  of  which 
contain  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  Old  Testament 
with  some  gaps,  amounting  to  nearly  six  hundred 
verses.  The  fourth  volume  contains  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  whole  of  Matthew's  Gospel  to  25 :  6  is 
missing,  'together  with  John  6  :  50-8  :  52,  and  2  Cor. 
4  :  13-12  :  6.  After  the  Apocalypse  is  found  what 
was  until  very  recently  the  only  known  extant  copy 
of  the  first  or  genuine  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Kome, 
and  a  small  fragment  of  a  second  of  suspected  authen- 
ticity. It  would  appear  that  these  two  Epistles  were 
designed  to  form  a  part  of  the  volume  of  Scripture, 
being  represented  in  the  table  of  contents  under  the 
head  H  KAINH  AIA©HKH.  To  these  are  added  the 
eighteen  Psalms  of  Solomon  as  distinct  from  Scripture. 
The  Codex  is  in  quarto,  12J  inches  high  and  10^ 
broad,  and  consists  of  773  leaves.  Each  page  contains 
two  columns  of  fifty  or  fifty-one  lines  each.  The 
uncials  are  of  an  elegant  but  simple  form,  in  a  uni- 
form hand,  though  in  some  places  larger  than  in 
others.  The  punctuation,  which  no  later  hand  has 
meddled  with,  consists  merely  of  a  point  placed  at 
the  end  of  a  sentence,  usually  on  a  level  with  the  top 
of  the  preceding  letter.  A  vacant  space  follows  the 
point  at  the  end  of  a  paragraph,  the  space  being 
proportioned  to  the  break  in  the  sense.  Capital  letters 
of  various  sizes,  written  in  common  ink,  are  found  at 
the  beginning  of  books  and  sections.  These  capitals 
stand  in  the  margin  entirely  outside  of  the  column ; 
so  that  if  the  section  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  line, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANU8CBIPTS  21 

the  capital  is  postj^oned  until  the  beginning  of  the 
next  line,  the  first  letter  of  which  is  always  the  capi- 
tal, even  though  it  be  in  the  middle  of  a  word.  The 
first  line  of  Mark,  the  first  three  of  Luke,  the  first 
verse  of  John,  the  opening  of  the  Acts  down  to  Si, 
and  so  on  for  other  books,  are  in  vermilion. 

This  is  the  first  Codex  which  has  K€<f>a\aLa  proper, 
the  Ammonian  sections  and  the  Eusebian  canons 
complete. 

Codex  Ephraemi  (C).  Eifth  century.  In  the  National  Codex 
Library  at   Paris.     It  was   brought   into   Erance   by    (c).^^^°^^ 
Catherine  de'  Medici.     It  is  a  palimpsest,  the  ancient 
writing  having  been  removed  about  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury in  order  to  transcribe  the  works  of  Ephraem,  the 
Syrian  Eather.     An  attempt   to  recover  the  original 
writing  by  the  application  of  a  chemical  preparation, 
in  1834,  defaced   the  vellum  with    stains   of   various    . 
colors.    The  older  writing  was  first  noticed  nearly  two 
centuries   ago.     A   collation   of  the   New  Testament 
was  made  by  Wetstein  in  1716 ;  but  the  first  thorough 
collation  was  by  Tischendorf  in  1843. 

The  Codex  originally  contained  the  whole  Greek 
Bible.  Only  sixty-four  leaves  remain  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Of  the  New  Testament  ninety-three 
leaves  are  missing.  Those  which  remain  contain  Contents 
portions  of  every  book  except  1  Thessalonians  and  °^  ^• 
2  John.  There  is  but  one  column  to  a  page,  con- 
taining from  forty  to  forty-six  lines.  The  characters 
are  larger  and  more  elaborate  than  those  of  A  or  B. 
Tlie  punctuation  resembles  that  of  A.  The  Ammonian 
sections  stand  in  the  margin,  but  the  chemical  appli- 
cations have  not  revealed  the  Eusebian  canons. 
These  canons  were  commonly  noted  in  vermilion,  and 
lines  of  the  text  written  in  vermilion  have  been  com- 
pletely obliterated.  There  is  no  trace  of  chapters  in 
the  Acts,  Epistles,  or  Apocalypse.     In  the  Gospels  the 


22 


TEXTUAL   CBITICISM 


Codex  Bezae 

(D). 


Divisions 
of  D. 


Ke(f>d\aLa  are  not  placed  in  the  upper  margin  of  tlie 
page  as  in  A,  but  a  list  of  their  tItXol  preceded  each 
Gospel.  Two  correctors  have  handled  the  Codex, 
possibly  of  the  sixth  and  ninth  centuries. 

Codex  Bezae  or  Cantabrigiensis  (D).  Sixth  century. 
In  the  Library  of  the  University  of  Cambridge.  It  is 
named  from  Theodore  Beza,  who  presented  it  to  the 
University  in  1581.  It  contains  only  the  Gospels  and 
Acts,  and  is  the  first  example  of  a  copy  in  two  lan- 
guages, giving  a  Latin  version  in  addition  to  the 
Greek  text.  It  is  marked  by  numerous  interpolations 
and  departures  from  the  normal  text,  and  on  this 
account  some  critics  refuse  to  place  it  among  the 
primary  uncials.  It  originally  contained  the  Catholic 
Epistles  between  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  and  in 
the  Latin  translation  a  few  verses  of  3  John  remain, 
followed  by  the  words  "  Epistulse  Johannis  iii 
explicit,  incipit  actus  Apostolorum,"  as  if  the  Epistle 
of  Jude  were  displaced  or  wanting.  It  is  a  quarto 
volume,  ten  inches  high  and  eight  broad,  with 
one  column  on  a  page,  the  Greek  text  being  on  the 
left-hand  page,  and  the  Latin  facing  it  on  the  right. 
There  are  thirty-three  lines  on  every  page,  the  matter 
being  arranged  stichometrically.  It  has  not  the 
Eusebian  canons,  but  only  the  Ammonian  sections. 
It  has  suffered  at  the  hands  of  nine  or  ten  different 
revisers.  The  margins  of  the  church  lessons  for 
Saturday  and  Sunday  contain  liturgical  notes  in  thick 
letters.  A  few  others  for  the  great  feasts  and  fast 
days  occur,  and,  in  a  hand  of  about  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, lessons  for  the  festivals  of  St.  George  and  St. 
Dionysius,  the  patron  saints  of  England  and  France.^ 

1  Among  the  secondary  uncials  the  most  important  are  :  D2, 
Codex  Claromontanus,  second  half  of  the  sixth  century,  National 
Library  at  Paris,  Greek  and  Latin,  contains  the  Pauline  Epistles 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     E2,  sixth  century.  Codex  Lau- 


i;    -^   a 
-so 

^  ;:;  I-) 


NEW  TESTAMENT  MANUSCRIPTS  2S 

dianus,  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford,  Greek  and  Latin,  contains 
the  Acts.  L,  Codex  llegius,  eighth  century,  National  Library 
at  Paris,  contains  the  Gospels  complete  :  a  very  ancient  text. 
T",  Codex  Borgianus,  fifth  century,  Propaganda  at  Rome,  Greek 
and  Coptic,  contains  179  verses  of  Luke  and  John.  Dr.  Hort 
ranks  it  next  after  B  and  X  for  excellence  of  text.  Z,  Codex 
Dubliuensis,  palimpsest,  sixth  century,  Trinity  College,  Dub- 
lin, contains  295  verses  of  Matthew,  in  tvt^enty-two  fragments  ; 
agrees  v^ith  K  rather  than  with  B.  A,  Codex  Sangallensis,  ninth 
century,  library  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Gall  in  the  northeast 
of  Switzerland,  Gospels  nearly  complete ;  a  Latin  interlinear 
translation.  The  text  in  Mark  is  of  the  same  type  as  L. 
S,  Codex  Zacynthius,  eighth  century,  palimpsest,  in  the  Library 
of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  in  London,  contains 
342  verses  of  Luke's  Gospel.  Dr.  Hort  places  it  next  to  T*. 
A  continuous  commentary  by  different  authors  (catena)  accom- 
panies the  text.  Scrivener  says  this  is  the  earliest  known  — 
indeed,  the  only  —  uncial  furnished  with  a  catena. 


CHAPTER  III 


VERSIONS 


Versions. 


Worth  of 
versions  in 
textual 
criticism. 


Versions  of  the  New  Testament  writings  were  de- 
manded early  by  the  rapid  spread  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
Syrians,  Egyptians,  and  the  Latin-speaking  people 
of  Africa,  Italy,  and  the  west  of  Europe.  Transla- 
tions into  Syriac  and  Latin  were  made  in  the  second 
century,  and  later  into  Coptic,  when  Alexander's  con- 
quest opened  Egypt. 

Versions  are  important  in  textual  criticism  because 
they  are  earlier  than  extant  manuscripts,  because  their 
ages  are  known,  and  because  they  are,  generally,  au- 
thorised translations,  made  either  by  a  body  of  men, 
or  by  a  single  recognised  and  accepted  authority. 
Versions  may  indeed  have  suffered  in  the  course  of 
transmission,  but  when  the  ancient  versions  accord,  it 
is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  in  such  passages  they 
have  not  suffered. 

On  the  other  hand,  their  evidence  is  less  direct  than 
that  of  manuscripts,  since  we  must  translate  them 
back  into  their  originals  in  any  case  of  doubt.  They 
have  been  transmitted  in  manuscripts,  just  as  the 
Greek  original  has  been,  and  are  liable  to  the  same 
accidents  which  have  affected  the  Greek  text.  They 
have  undergone  similar  textual  corruptions.  No  man- 
uscript copy  of  a  version  is  earlier  than  the  fourth 
century.  Therefore  it  may  be  found  as  difficult  to 
arrive  at  the  primitive  text  of  a  version  as  of  the 
Greek  original.  Some  versions,  moreover,  are  second- 
24 


VERSIONS  25 

ary,  derived  from  other  versions  of  the  Greek ;  and 
some  merely  give  the  sense,  without  attempting  ver- 
bal renderings. 

Versions  by  themselves,  therefore,  cannot  establish  Office  of 
any  reading.  They  can  only  supplement  manuscript  criticism!'^ 
evidence.  If  an  ancient  version  accords  with  a  very 
early  Greek  manuscript  in  some  particular  reading, 
the  evidence  is  weighty  as  to  the  early  prevalence  of 
that  reading  ;  and  if  this  testimony  is  supported  by  a 
second  version,  its  weight  is  greatly  increased.  If  we 
are  sure  of  the  original  words  of  a  Syriac  or  Latin 
translation,  we  may  have  a  reasonably  correct  idea  of 
the  words  of  a  Greek  text  extant  in  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century.  On  the  omission  of  words  and 
clauses  the  testimony  of  versions  is  as  clear  as  that  of 
original  manuscripts.  It  must  be  noted,  further,  that 
the  value  of  a  version's  evidence  at  certain  points  will 
depend  somewhat  on  the  character  of  the  language 
into  which  the  Greek  is  rendered.  For  instance,  a 
Latin  version  would  seldom  testify  to  the  presence  or 
absence  of  the  Greek  article. 

I .    Latin  Versions.  —  A  comparison  of  the  Old  Latin  Latin  ver- 
texts,  previous  to  Jerome's  version,  indicates  that  they 
all  are  offshoots  from   one,  or   at   most  two,  parent 
stocks. 

One  of  the  several  recensions  current  toward  the 
end  of  the  fourth  century  was  known  as  Itala.  It 
was  for  a  long  time  thought  that  it  originated  in 
Africa  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century.^ 

Three  groups  of  Old  Latin  manuscripts  are  recog- 
nised, each  representing  a  distinct  type  of  text:  (1) 
African,   agreeing  generally  with  quotations  in  Ter- 

1  See  Cardinal  Wiseman,  Two  Lectures  on  Some  Parts  of  the 
Controversy  concerning  1  John  5 :  7.  Republished  in  Essays 
on  Various  Subjects,  I,  1853,  Rome.  Later  scholarship  has 
become  less  confident  as  to  the  African  origin. 


26 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Jerome's 
revision. 


tullian  and  Cyprian ;  (2)  European,  either  independent 
or  based  on  the  African ;  (3)  Italian,  formed  on  the 
European  type,  and  revised  with  the  aid  of  later 
Greek  manuscripts.  Many  of  the  Old  Latin  manu- 
scripts, however,  present  texts  which  cannot  be  as- 
signed to  either  of  these  classes.  At  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  there  was  so  much  variation  in  exist- 
ing texts  that  Jerome  was  requested  by  Pope  Damasus 
to  undertake  a  revision.  His  labour  was  expended 
chiefly  on  the  Old  Testament.  In  all  parts  of  the 
New  Testament,  except  the  Gospels,  his  revision  was 
cursory.  The  texts  which  precede  his  version  remain 
to  us  only  in  fragments,  and  are  to  be  gathered,  largely, 
from  citations  by  the  Fathers.  These  patristic  cita- 
tions may  be  found,  not  only  in  writings  composed 
before  Jerome,  but  also  in  later  compositions,  since  a 
long  time  elapsed  before  Jerome's  work  obtained  gen- 
eral currency.  Down  to  the  end  of  the  sixth  century 
different  texts  were  used  at  the  writer's  pleasure.  Ac- 
cordingly we  find  in  some  exclusively  an  old  text,  in 
others  only  Jerome's  version,  while  others  again  em- 
ploy both.^ 

1  Some  idea  of  tlie  differences  may  be  gained  from  the  follow- 
ing parallels,  the  variations  from  Jerome's  version  being  desig- 
nated by  italics :  — 

Romans  10:9 

lREN,t;U8 


Jbromb 
quia  si  confitearis  In 
ore  tuo  Dominum  Je- 
»um,  et  in  corde  tuo  cre- 
dlderls  quod  Dens  ilium 
•uscitavlt  a  mortuis,  sal- 
Tug  erls. 


Jeromb 
Idee  enlm  et  tributa 
prsBStatis ;  mlniatri  enim 
Del  sunt,  in  hoc  Ipsum 
Ber\ient«8. 


quoniam  sl  confltea- 
ris  In  ore  tuo  Dominum 
Josum  et  credideris 
in  corde  tuo  quoniam 
Deus  Ilium  excitavit  a 
mortuis,  salvus  erls. 

Romans  13  :  6 

Iken^ds 
Propter  hoc  enlm  et 
tributa  penditia ;  ralnl- 
stri  enim  Del  sunt  fn  hoc 
Ipsum  servlentes. 


Hilary  op  Poitiers 

quia  si  confessuft  fu- 
eris  In  ore  tuo,  quia 
Dominus  Jesus  est,  et 
credideris  in  corde  tuo, 
quia  Deus  ilium  Buscita- 
vlt  a  mortuis,  salvaheris. 


Augustine 
Ideo  (elsewhere  prop- 
ter hoc)  enim  et  tributa 
prflCBtatis ;  minlstrl  enim 
Dei  in  hoc  Ipsum  perse- 
ver  antes. 


VERSIONS 


27 


A  second  revision  was  attempted  by  Alcuin  (735- 
804),  and  a  third  by  Sixtus  V  (1590).  The  modern 
authorised  Vulgate  is  the  Clementine  (1592),  which 
is  substantially  Jerome's  version.  The  Old  Latin 
version  of  the  i!^ew  Testament  was  translated  directly 
from  the  original  Greek.  The  Vulgate  was  only  a  re- 
vision of  the  Old  Latin.  But  the  Old  Latin  was  made 
long  before  any  of  our  existing  G-reek  manuscripts,  Value  of  the 
and  takes  us  back  almost  to  within  a  generation  of  the  vei-s\on!'^ 
time  at  which  the  Xew  Testament  books  were  com- 
posed. The  Old  Latin  Version  is  therefore  one  of  the 
most  interesting  and  valuable  evidences  which  we  pos- 
sess for  the  condition  of  the  New  Testament  text  in 
the  earliest  times.* 


Jerome 

sed  semetipsum  exin- 
anivit,  formam  servi  ac- 
cipiens,  in  similitudinem 
hominum  factus  et  habitu 
inventus  ut  homo. 


Jerome 

Juvenes  similiter  bor- 
tare,  ut  sobrii  sint.  In 
omnibus  te  ipsum  prsebe 
exemplum  bonorum  ope- 
rura,  in  doctrina,  in  in- 
tegritate,  in  gravitate,  in 
sermone  sano  et  irrepre- 
hensibili,  ut  is  qui  ex 
adverse  est  vereatur,  ni- 
hil habens  malum  dicere 
de  nobis. 


Philippians  2 : 7 

Tertullian 

exhausit  semet  ip- 
sum accepta  effigie  servi 
et  in  similitudine  ho- 
minis  et  figura  inven- 
tus ut  homo. 

Titus  2 : 6-8 

Lucifer  of  Cagliari 
Juvenes  similiter  hor- 
tare,  ut  sobrii  sint  in 
omnibus,  (note  diflference 
of  punctuation,)  per  om- 
nia te  ipsum  formam 
prcebena  bonorum  ope- 
rum  in  doctrina  (punc- 
tuation), in  integritate, 
in  gravitate,  in  sermone 
sanujn,  irreprehensihi- 
lem,  ut  adversarius  re- 
vereatur  nihil  habens 
quid  dicere  malum  de 
nobis. 


NOVATIAN 

semet  ipsum  exinani- 
vit  formam  servi  accipi- 
ens,  in  similitudine  ho- 
minum factus  et  habitu 
inventus  ut  homo. 


Ambbobiasteb 

Juniores  similiter 
hortare,  continentes  essfi 
per  omnia,  temei  ipsum 
prcebens  exemplum  bon- 
orum operum  in  doc- 
trina, in  integritate,  in 
gravitate,  verbum  sa- 
num,  irreprekensibile, 
ut  is  qui  e  diverse  est 
revereatur  nihil  habens 
dicere  de  nobis  dignum 
reprehensio7ie. 


1  On  Latin  Vei-sions,  see :  H.  Ronsch,  Das  N.  T.  TertullianSy 
etc.,  Leipzig,  1871.  Id.  Itala  und  Vulgata,  2  Ausg.,  Marburg, 
1875.  Wordsworth  and  White,  Novnm  Testamentum  Latine, 
Oxford,  1887.  Wordsworth,  White,  and  Sanday,  OM  Latin 
Biblical  Texts,  Oxford,  1888.    F.  C.  Burkitt,  The  Old  Latin  and 


28 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


2.  Syriac  Versions.  —  The  gospel  was  first  preached 
in  the  East.  The  nearness  of  Syria  to  Judaea,  and 
the  early  growth  of  the  church  at  Antioch  and  Damas- 
cus, must  have  produced  an  early  demand  for  a  ren- 
dering into  the  Syriac  tongue.  Of  extant  versions 
there  are  five:  Peshitto,  Curetonian,  Philoxenian  and 
Harclean,  Jerusalem  or  Palestinian,  and  the  Lewis 
Palimpsest. 

The  Peshitto  is  the  great  standard  version  of  the 
Syriac  church,  made  not  later  than  the  third  century. 
It  is  known  to  us  in  177  manuscripts,  most  of  which 
are  in  the  British  Museum.  Two  of  these  are  of  the 
fifth  century;  at  least  a  dozen  more  not  later  than  the 
sixth  century.  The  Peshitto  does  not  contain  those 
books  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  the  last  to 
be  generally  accepted,  as  2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  Jude, 
and  the  Apocalypse. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  Gries- 
bach  and  Hug  asserted  that  the  Peshitto  was  not  the 
original  Syriac,  but  a  revision  of  an  earlier  version. 
In  1842  eighty  leaves  of  a  copy  of  the  Gospels  in 
Syriac  were  discovered  in  the  Syrian  Convent  of  St. 
Mary  in  the  Nitrian  Desert.  These  contained  a  dif- 
ferent text  from  those  of  any  manuscripts  previously 
known.  They  were  edited  by  Dr.  Cureton  of  the 
British  Museum,  who  maintained  that  they  exhibited 
the  very  words  of  the  Lord's  discourses  in  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  were  originally  spoken.  The 
manuscript  is  of  the  fifth  century,  practically  con- 
temporary with  the  earliest  existing  manuscripts  of 


the  Itala,  Cambridge  Texts  and  Studies,  IV,  3,  Cambridge,  1896. 
S.  Berger,  Hlstoire  de  la  Vulgate  pendant  les  premiers  siecles 
du  Moyen  Age,  Paris,  1893.  D,  F.  Fritzsche,  article  "  Latein- 
ische  Bibelubersetzungen,"  in  Herzog's  lieal-Encyklopddie.  On 
the  Vetus  Latina  of  PauPs  Epistles :  Ziegler,  Die  Lateinischen 
Bibelubersetzungen  vor  Hieronymus,  Munchen,  1879. 


VERSIONS 


29 


Various 
opinions  as 
to  the  Cure- 


the  Peshitto.  Cureton,  however,  argued  that  the 
character  of  the  translation  showed  that  its  original 
must  have  been  earlier  than  the  original  of  the  Pesh- 
itto, and  that  the  Peshitto  was  the  revision  of  the  Old 
Syriac.^ 

Cureton's  view  has  been  hotly  contested.  The  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  Curetonian,  which  is  less  accurate, 
scholarly,  and  smooth  than  the  Peshitto,  is  a  corrup-  tonian. 
tion  of  the  latter,  or  whether,  as  Cureton  maintained, 
the  Peshitto  is  a  revision  of  the  Curetonian.  It  may 
be  said  that  it  is  unlikely  that  an  accurate  version  like 
the  Peshitto  should  have  been  deliberately  altered  for 
the  worse,  and  that  a  less  accurate,  independent  ver- 
sion should  have  passed  into  circulation.  The  affini- 
ties.of  the  Curetonian  version  are  with  the  older  forms 
of  the  Greek  text,  while  those  of  the  Peshitto  are  with 
its  later  forms.  Tischendorf  assigns  the  Curetonian 
to  the  middle,  the  Peshitto  to  the  end,  of  the  second 
century.  Others  assign  the  Peshitto  to  the  end  of  the 
third  or  beginning  of  the  fourth.  Dr.  Hort  says  that 
the  Curetonian  text  is  not  only  itself  a  valuable  au- 
thority, but  renders  the  comparatively  late  and  revised 
character  of  the  Peshitto  a  matter  of  certainty. 

The  question  was  reopened  by  the  discovery,  in 
1892,  by  Mrs.  Agnes  Lewis,  in  the  Convent  of  St. 
Catherine  on  Mt.  Sinai,  of  a  Syriac  palimpsest  of  the 
four  Gospels.  The  following  is  Mrs.  Lewis's  own  ac- 
count of  her  discovery:  ^  — 

^'In  the  Convent  of  St.  Catherine,  on  Mt.  Sinai,  a 
chest  containing  ancient  Syriac  manuscripts  has  lain 


The  Lewis 
palimpsest. 


1  The  manuscript  of  the  Curetonian  Syriac  Gospels  contains 
Matt.  1-8  :  22  ;  10  :  31-23  :  25.     Of  Mark,  16  :  17-20.     Of  John, 

1  : 1-42  ;   3  :  6-7  :  37,  and  fragments  of  14  :  11-29.      Of  Luke, 

2  :  48-3  :  16  ;  7  :  33-15  :  21 ;  17  :  24-24  :  44. 

2  The  Four  Gospels  translated  from  the  Sinaitic  Palimpsest^ 
London,  1894. 


30  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

undisturbed  for  centuries.  Professor  Palmer  saw  its 
contents  in  1868,  and  thus  refers  to  them :  '  Among  a 
pile  of  patristic  and  other  works  of  no  great  age  or 
interest  are  some  curious  old  Syriac  books,  and  one  or 
two  palimpsests.  My  hurried  visit  prevented  me  from 
examining  these  with  any  great  care ;  but  they  would 
no  doubt  well  repay  investigation.' 

"  The  first  real  examination  of  these  books  was  re- 
served for  Mr.  Rendel  Harris,  who,  in  1889,  after  a 
stay  of  fifteen  days  at  the  Convent,  contrived  to  dis- 
arm all  prejudices,  and  to  obtain  access  to  these  hid- 
den treasures.  .  .  . 

"Amongst  the  ancient  volumes  which  were  produced 
for  our  inspection  by  the  late  Hegoumenos  and  Libra- 
rian, Father  Galakteon,  was  a  thick  volume,  whose 
leaves  had  evidently  been  unturned  for  centuries,  as 
they  could  be  separated  only  by  manipulation  with 
the  fingers,  and  in  some  cases  only  by  the  steam  of  a 
kettle.  A  single  glance  told  me  that  the  book  was  a 
palimpsest,  and  I  soon  ascertained  that  the  upper 
writing  was  a  very  entertaining  account  of  the  lives 
of  women  saints,  and  that  its  date  was,  as  I  then  read 
it,  a  thousand  and  nine  years  after  Alexander,  that  is, 
A.D.  697.  After  the  word  'nine'  there  is  a  small  hole 
in  the  vellum,  which,  as  Mr.  Rendel  Harris  believes, 
occupies  the  place  of  the  syllable  corresponding  to 
the  'ty'  of  'ninety,'  and  the  date  is  thus  probably 
A.D.  778. 

"  I  then  examined  the  more  ancient  writing  which 
lay  beneath  this.  It  is  in  two  columns,  one  of  which 
is  always  projected  onto  the  margin,  and  it  is  written 
in  the  same  character,  but  in  a  much  smaller  hand 
than  the  later  writing  which  covers  it.  It  was  also 
slightly  reddish  in  colour.  As  I  glanced  down  the 
margin  for  over  280  pages,  every  word  that  I  could 
decipher  was  from  the  Gospels,  and  so  were  the  lines 


VERSIONS  31 

which  at  the  top  or  bottom  of  several  pages  were  free 
of  the  later  writing.  And  few,  indeed,  were  the  pages 
which  had  not  a  distinct  title,  such  as  '  Evangelium,' 
'  da  Mathai,'  '  da  Marcus,'  or  '  da  Luca.'  " 

Mrs.   Lewis   photographed   the   pages  which  were  The  work  of 
shown  to  the  late  Professor  Bensley,  who  was  then  ^^^'  ^®^^^- 
engaged  on  a  critical  edition  of  the  Curetonian  Gos- 
pels.    He  pronounced  the  text  to  be  of  the  same  type 
as  the  Curetonian. 

A  second  expedition  to  the  Sinaitic  convent  was 
organised,  in  which  Mrs.  Lewis  was  accompanied  hj 
Professor  Bensley,  J.  Kendel  Harris,  and  F.  C.  Burkitt. 
In  forty  days  the  text  of  the  Gospels  was  transcribed 
directly  from  the  manuscript,  and  Mrs.  Lewis  suc- 
ceeded in  restoring  much  of  the  faded  writing  by 
means  of  a  chemical  agent. 

The  manuscript  is  written  on  strong  vellum.  The  Appearance 
text  of  the  Gospels  underlies  about  284  pages  on  142  fj^^^''''^'^^' 
leaves  of  the  Martyrology.  In  addition  to  these  leaves 
the  scribe  made  use  of  four  leaves  from  a  fourth-cen- 
tury manuscript  of  the  Gospels,  many  leaves  from  a 
volume  of  Syriac  apocrypha,  containing  the  Acts  of 
Thomas  and  the  Kepose  of  Mary,  and  other  leaves 
from  a  Greek  manuscript,  not  identified. 

The  text  presents  a  number  of  variations  from  the  Variations 
standard  Greek  text,  but  most  of  them  are  curious  and  ^l^^l  °^^^^- 
interesting  rather  than  important.  There  are  some 
transpositions,  as  in  John  18,  where  the  questioning 
by  the  High  Priest  follows  immediately  upon  Christ's 
being  led  to  him,  and  Peter's  three  denials  are  grouped 
in  a  consecutive  narrative  in  the  succeeding  verses.  In 
Luke  22  there  is  a  fresh  arrangement  of  the  narra- 
tive from  ver.  17  to  ver.  21,  by  which  it  is  made  more 
compact  and  orderly.  The  interpolation  at  Luke  23  : 
48,  which  occurs  only  in  Codex  Bezae,  appears  here: 
"  Woe  unto  us,  what  hath  befallen  us  ?     Woe  unto  us 


32  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

for  our  sins."  Matt.  1 :  16  reads,  "  Joseph  begat  Jesus 
who  is  called  Christ,"  and  in  ver.  25  the  words  "  and 
knew  her  not  until "  are  omitted.  Yet  Matt.  1 :  18 
is  retained,  "When  they  had  not  come  near  to  one 
another,  she  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark  are  omitted. 

The  question  of  the  relation  of  this  Codex  to  other 
V^/^ous"'^^  Syriac  Versions  is  far  too  technical  to  be  discussed 
here.  An  important  point  is  the  relation  of  the  Cure- 
tonian  Version  to  the  Diatessaron  or  Gospel  Harmony 
of  Tatian,  composed  about  160  a.d.,  and  which  was 
charged  with  omitting  whatever  went  to  show  that 
Jesus  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh.  The  whole  problem  presents  the  following 
factors :  (1)  An  early  Syriac  Version  represented  by 
the  Curetonian,  but  how  early  ?  (2)  The  Peshitto.  Is 
it  a  revision  of  an  earlier  version,  and  if  so,  is  that 
version  the  Curetonian?  (3)  Tatian's  Diatessaron. 
Was  it  originally  written  in  Syriac  ?  Was  it  earlier 
than  the  Curetonian  ?  To  quote  Mrs.  Lewis,  "  Was  the 
Diatessaron  compiled  in  the  second  century  from  the 
version  contained  in  the  Curetonian  and  in  the  Sinai 
Codices,  or  did  that  version  come  into  existence  only 
in  the  fourth  century,  when  the  use  of  the  Diatessaron 
was  discontinued  ?  "  (4)  The  Lewis  Palimpsest.  It  is 
no  doubt  earlier  than  the  Peshitto.  Is  it  earlier  than 
the  Curetonian  ?  It  does  not  perfectly  coincide  with 
the  Curetonian.  Eb.  Nestle  and  J.  Eendel  Harris 
both  hold  that  it  represents  the  very  first  attempt  to 
render  the  Gospel  into  Syriac,  and  thus  both  the  Dia- 
tessaron and  the  Curetonian  are  revisions  of  it.^ 

1  See  G.  Salmon,  Some  Criticism  of  the  Text  of  the  New 
Testament^  75. 

On  Syriac  Versions,  see  :  Th.  Zalin,  Geschichte  der  neutesta- 
mentlichen  Kanons,  Leipzig,  1888,  1801.  Eb.  Nostle,  article 
"Syrische  Bibeliibersetzungen,"  in  Herzog's  Beal-Encyklopddie  ; 


VEBSIONS  33 

The  Philoxenian  Version  was  made  by  Philoxenus,   Philoxenian 
Bishop  of  Mabug  (Hierapolis)  in  Eastern  Syria,  in  508  ;   cleaifsyriac. 
probably  with  a  view  to  provide  a  more  literal  version 
than  the  Peshitto.     Few  traces  of  it,  in  its  original 
form,  remain.^ 

Improperly  confounded  with  the  Philoxenian  is  a 
version  made  at  Alexandria,  in  616,  by  Thomas  of 
Harkel,  also  Bishop  of  Mabug.  It  was  formerly  re- 
garded as  a  revision  of  the  Philoxenian;  but  the 
opinion  has  gained  ground  that  it  was  substantially 
a  new  version.  It  is  known  as  the  Harclean  Syriac, 
and  is  characterised  by  slavish  adherence  to  the  Greek, 
even  to  the  destruction  of  the  Syriac  idiom. 

The  Jerusalem  Syriac  exists  only  in  fragments,  and  Jerusalem 
differs  in  dialect  from  all  the  other  versions.  It  is 
believed  to  have  been  made  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
and  to  have  been  used  exclusively  in  Palestine.  It 
was  discovered  at  the  end  of  the  last  century  in  the 
Vatican  Library,  and  was  edited  in  1861-64.     Since 

full  catalogue  of  literature.  Baethgen,  Evangelienfragmente. 
Der  griechische  Text  des  Curetonschen  Syrers  wiederhergestellt, 
Leipzig,  1885.  G.  H.  Gwilliam,  The  Material  for  the  Criticism 
of  the  Peshitto  New  Testament,  Studia  Bihlica,  Oxford,  1891, 
III,  47-104.  R.  L.  Bensley,  J.  Rendel  Harris,  F.  C.  Burkitt, 
The  Four  Gospels  in  Syriac,  transcribed  from  the  Sinaitic 
Palimpsest,  Cambridge,  1894.  Agnes  Smith  Lewis,  The  Four 
Gospels  translated  from  the  Syriac  of  the  Sinaitic  Palimpsest, 
London,  1894.  Tischendorf,  New  Testament,  III,  806  ff. ;  list 
of  earlier  articles  on  the  Curetonian  Syriac.  Scrivener,  Intro- 
duction, etc.,  II,  6  ff. 

On  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  see  A.  Harnack,  Geschichte  der 
altehristlichen  Litteratur,  Th.  I,  S.  485  ff.  J.  Hamlyn  Hill, 
The  Earliest  Life  of  Christ,  being  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian, 
Clarks,  Edinburgh, 'l894. 

1  Unless  the  manuscript  brought  to  light  by  Dr.  Isaac  H, 
Hall  of  New  York,  in  1876,  can  be  shown,  as  is  claimed,  to 
be  the  unrevised  Philoxenian.  This  manuscript  is  now  in 
the  library  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

D 


8^ 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


then  fragments  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts  have  been 
found  in  the  British  Museum  and  at  St.  Petersburg, 
and  two  additional  lectionaries  and  fragments  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford  and  at  Mt. 
Sinai.  Two  more  lectionaries  have  been  discovered  at 
Mt.  Sinai  by  Mrs.  Lewis.^ 

What  is  called  the  Karkaphensian  Syriac  is  not  a 
continuous  version,  but  a  collection  of  passages  on 
which  annotations  have  been  made,  dealing  with  ques- 
tions of  spelling  and  pronunciation. 

3.  Egyptian  Versions.  —  The  language  used  by  the 
natives  of  Egypt  at  the  time  when  the  Bible  was  first 
translated  for  their  use,  is  called  Coptic.  It  was  allied 
to  the  Demotic  or  vulgar  language,  so  called  to  distin- 
guish it  from  the  Hieratic  or  priestly  language.  The 
Demotic  writing  contained  a  mixture  of  alphabetic 
signs,  each  of  which  represented  a  single  sound,  with 
other  signs  representing  syllables,  and  others  not  pho- 
netic but  pictorial.  With  the  entrance  of  Christianity 
into  Egypt  a  new  and  strictly  phonetic  alphabet  was 
introduced,  the  characters  being  adopted  from  the 
Greek  alphabet. 

We  are  acquainted  with  five  Egyptian  Versions,  of 
which  only  three  need  be  mentioned :  the  Memphitic 
or  Bahiric;  the  Thebaic  or  Sahidic;  the  Bashmuric. 
The  Memphitic  was  current  in  Northern  Egypt.  It 
was  the  most  literary  dialect  of  the  Egyptian  language, 
and  is  the  Coptic  of  to-day,  so  far  as  the  language  still 
exists.  Only  in  the  Bahiric  are  complete  copies  of  the 
New  Testament  still  extant.  All  the  other  Coptic  ver- 
sions exist  only  in  fragments.  The  oldest  and  best 
manuscript  (Oxford,  Gospels)  is  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  twelfth  century.     It  is  a  good  and  careful  traus- 

1  See  J.  Rendel  Harris,  Biblical  Fragments  from  Mt.  Sinai. 
G.  H.  Gwilliam,  Anecdota  Oxoniensia,  Semitic  Series,  I,  6, 
1893 ;  9,  1896. 


VERSIONS 


35 


lation.  It  did  not  originally  inclnde  the  Apocalypse. 
The  Thebaic  was  current  in  Southern  Egypt.  It  exists 
only  in  fragments,  but  these  are  very  numerous,  espe- 
cially at  Paris.  The  fragments,  if  combined,  would 
compose  a  nearly  complete  New  Testament,  with  con- 
siderable portions  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  prob- 
ably later  than  the  Bahiric.  The  language  is  less 
polished,  and  the  text  not  so  pure.  The  Bashmuric 
was  an  adaptation  of  the  Thebaic,  in  the  dialect  of 
herdsmen  living  in  the  Nile  Delta.  Only  a  few  frag- 
ments remain,  covering  about  three  hundred  verses  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  five  verses  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles. 

For  the  ^Ethiopic,  Armenian,  and  Gothic  Versions, 
the  reader  may  consult  Tischendorf  s  New  Testament, 
III,  and  Scrivener's  "Introduction,"  etc.  A  tenth- 
century  manuscript  of  the  Armenian  version  is  inter- 
esting as  containing  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  with  a  heading  stating  that  they  are  "  of  the 
Elder  Aristion."  One  Aristion  is  mentioned  by  Papias 
as  having  been  a  disciple  of  the  Lord. 

If  the  writer  of  these  verses  could  be  identified  with- 
out doubt  as  a  disciple  of  the  Lord,  the  fact  would 
naturally  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  much- 
vexed  question  of  the  authenticity  of  the  passage. 
But  such  identification  is  far  from  positive.^ 

1  See  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  Ill,  39. 

The  Gothic  Version  of  the  Gospels  may  be  seen  in  Bosworth 
and  Waring's  Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels  in  Parallel  Col- 
umns. For  an  interesting  treatment  of  Ulfilas,  the  author  of 
the  Gothic  Version,  see  T.  Hodgkin,  Italy  and  her  Invaders, 
I,  Ft.  I,  80  ff. 

On  Egyptian  Versions,  see  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  in  Scrivener's 
Introduction,  4th  ed.  II,  91-144.  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena, 
869  ff. 


^thiopic, 
Armenian, 
and  Gothic 
Versions. 


The  Elder 
Aristion. 


CHAPTER   IV 


PATRISTIC   QUOTATIONS 


The  third  source  of  textual  evidence  is  furnished  by 
quotations  from  the  Greek  Testament  by  other  writers, 
especially  the  Church  Fathers.  This  class  of  evidence 
is  styled  "  the  Evidence  of  Patristic  Quotation."  It 
has  a  certain  value,  but  the  value  is  limited  or  quali- 
fied by  numerous  considerations.  While  it  is  probable 
that  nearly  the  whole  substance  of  New  Testament 
teaching  could  be  recovered  from  the  Patristic  writ- 
ings, the  same  cannot  be  said  of  the  text.  The  text  of 
many  of  the  Fathers  is  itself  in  an  imperfect  state. 
"  It  is  a  shame,"  says  Dr.  Nestle,  "  that  the  most  im- 
portant Fathers  are  not  yet  before  us  in  proper  edi- 
tions." Dr.  Sanday  says :  "  The  field  of  the  patristic 
writings  needs  to  be  thoroughly  overhauled.  What 
makes  this  the  more  urgent  is  that  where  the  text  has 
not  been  critically  tested,  the  quotations  from  the 
Bible  are  the  first  to  suffer.  The  scribes  were  con- 
stantly in  the  habit  of  substituting  the  text  with  which 
they  were  themselves  familiar  for  that  which  they 
found  before  them  in  the  manuscript.  So  that  what 
we  have  very  frequently  is,  not  the  words  of  the 
Father  as  they  were  originally  written,  but  simply  the 
late  Byzantine  or  Vulgate  text  current  in  the  Middle 
Ages  when  the  manuscript  was  copied."  ^ 

1  Expositor,  1st  Ser. ,  XI,  171.  The  Vienna  Academy  has  been 
issuing,  since  1867,  a  Corpus  Scriptorum  Ecdesiasticorum 
Latinorum,  which  already  amounts  to  fifty  volumes ;  and  the 

36 


PATBISTIC  QUOTATIONS  37 

The  habits  of  the  Fathers  in  quotation  were  very  Patristic 
loose.  Having  no  concordances  or  indices,  or  any-  quotaU^on. 
thing  resembling  the  modern  apparatus  for  facilitating 
reference,  and  often  no  manuscript,  they  were  fre- 
quently compelled  to  rely  upon  memory  for  their  cita- 
tions. Quoting  from  memory  explains  what  we  so 
often  find,  —  combinations  of  different  passages,  trans- 
positions, and  sense-renderings.  Though  a  full  sum- 
mary of  the  whole  gospel  life  could  be  composed  from 
the  quotations  of  Justin  Martyr,  his  quotations  are 
careless.  He  quotes  the  same  passage  differently  on 
different  occasions.  Although  he  cites  written  docu- 
ments, he  often  quotes  from  memory,  and  interweaves 
words  which  are  given  separately  by  the  Synoptists. 
He  condenses,  combines,  and  transposes  the  language 
of  the  Lord  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  records.  Take, 
for  example.  Matt.  5  :  22,  39,  40,  41,  and  Luke  6  :  29. 
In  Justin,  1  Apol.  XVI,  we  read  tw  tvtttovtl  a-ov  rrjv 
crcayova  Trdpexe  kol  tyjv  oXXyjv,  kol  tov  atpovra  crov  tov  )(LT(ava 
rj  TO  IfidTLOv  fJir)  K(oAucr>;s.  "Os  8c  av  opyiaOrj  ivo)^6<;  iariv  cis 
TO  TTvp,  iravTL  §€  ayyapevovTL  ce  fxtXiov  aKoXovOrjaov.  Here 
we  have  several  verses  massed,  apparently  from  two 
Evangelists.  Luke  is  literally  followed  in  the  first 
nine  words.  The  order  of  the  Gospel  is  not  observed, 
and  the  sense  is  changed  in  the  words  about  the  coat 
and  the  cloke. 

Similarly  Matt.  5  :  46 ;  comp.  Luke  6  :  27.  Justin, 
1  Apol.  XV :  €1  dyaTTare  rov<s  dyaTrwi/Tas  v/Aa5,  tl  Katvbv 
TTotetTe ;  kol  yap  ot  TTopvoi  tovto  ttolovo-lv.  Here,  instead  of 
"  What  reward  have  ye  ?  "  Justin  has  "  What  new  thing 
do  ye  do  ?  "     For  "  publicans  "  he  gives  "  fornicators." 

Again,  see  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Strom.  Ill,  4,  36, 
where  Matt.  5 :  16  is  given  to.  dyaOa.  vfidv  cpya  XafiipdTo), 
"  Let  your  good  works  shine." 

Berlin  Academy  has  in  process  an  edition  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
Church  Teachers. 


38 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Apostolic 
Fathers  not 
valuable  in 
Scripture 
quotation. 


Inaccurate 
citation. 


The  Apostolic  Fathers  are  of  little  value  for  patris- 
tic quotation,  since  they  do  not  so  much  quote  as  blend 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  with  their  own. 
Fragments  of  most  of  the  canonical  Epistles  are  em- 
bedded in  their  writings,  and  their  diction  is  more  or 
less  coloured  by  that  of  the  apostolic  books,^  and  differ- 
ent passages  are  combined.^ 

It  is  possible  that,  in  some  cases,  the  writers  do  not 
intend  to  quote,  but  merely  to  use  the  words  loosely 
by  way  of  allusion.  But  often,  even  when  quotation 
is  intended,  the  citation  is  inaccurate.  To  take  a  sin- 
gle instance,  Clement  of  Kome  was  familiar  with  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  references  to  it  occur  fre- 
quently in  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians ;  but  in  his  ci- 
tation of  Heb.  1 :  3,  4,  in  Ch.  36,  for  S6$rj<i  "  glory," 

1  For  example,  see  Ignatius,  Magn.  X,  viripdeade  olv  ttjv  KaKTjp 
l^fxrjv  TTjv  ira.\aio}det(Tav  Kal  iuo^iffaffav,  Kal  ixera^dXeffde  els  v^av 
^fiTlv  6i  ia-riv'Iria-ovs  Xpi(TT6s,  "  Put  away  the  vile  leaven  which 
hath  waxed  stale  and  sour,  and  betake  yourselves  to  the  new 
leaven  which  is  Jesus  Christ."     Compare  1  Cor.  5:7.. 

Ignatius  to  Polycarp,  I,  irdvTCJv  dvixov  iv  dydTry,  "  Suffer  all 
in  love. ' '     Compare  Eph.  4  :  2. 

Ignatius  to  Polycarp,  II,  (ppdvifxos  ylvov  ws  6  50ts  iv  Tra<np  Kal 
&K4paLos  eia-ael  ojs  i]  TrepiaTepd,  "  Become  thou  prudent  as  the  ser- 
pent in  all  things,  and  forever  guileless  as  the  dove."  Compare 
Matt.  X.  16. 

*  Thus  Ignatius,  Philad.  VII,  (rb  irveO/jLa)  oUev  ydp  irbdev 
ipX^Tai  Kal  TToO  inrdyet,  Kal  to.  Kpvirrd  iXeyx^h  "It  (the  Spirit) 
knoweth  whence  it  cometh  and  where  it  goeth,  and  searcheth 
out  the  hidden  things. ' '  Here  John  3  :  8  and  1  Cor.  2  :  10  are 
blended. 

Polycarp  to  the  Philippians,  I,  ov  ijyeipev  6  debs  \va-as  rds  (b8i- 
vaj  Tov  q.8ov  els  6v  ovk  Ibbvres  TTicrrei/cre  x^P^  dv€K\a\-f)T(fi  Kal 
Sedo^aa-fihri  els  rjv  iroWol  iindvp.o\}<xiv  el<re\deZv.  Tlie  quotation 
from  Acts  2  :  24  is  inexact,  "  Whom  God  raised  up,  having 
loosed  the  pains  of  Hades."  With  this  are  combined  a  loose 
quotation  from  1  Pet.  1:8,  "In  whom,  not  having  seen,  ye  be- 
lieve with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory  "  ;  also  an  adapta- 
tion of  1  Pet.  1  :  12,  "  into  which  many  desire  to  enter." 


PATRISTIC  QUOTATIONS  89 

we  have  ixeyaXwa-vvrj^  "  majesty  "  ;  for  Kpurrtav  "  better," 
IM€L^(x)v  "  greater "  ;  and  Trap'  avrovs  "  than  they "  is 
omitted. 

Renderings  where  the  sense  is  given  without  strict 
regard  to  the  text  are  found  frequently  in  Irenseus, 
who  is  usually  careful  in  quotation.  He  changes  the 
syntax,  or  uses  different  words  intended  as  equivalents, 
as  evxa.pL(TT7](r€v  for  evXoyrjcrev  in  Luke  2  :  28  ;  olkoXovOcl  fxoi 
for  tp^€.TaL  OTviaoi  [xov,  in  Luke  1-4  :  27  ;  ir^wXav-qixivov  for 
dTToAcoAos  in  Luke  15  :  4.  Similarly  Origen,  Cont.  Cels. 
8 :  43,  gives  the  equivalent  of  Eph.  2 :  12  without 
exact  quotation,  TQv<i  ^eVovs  toji/  BLadrjKCjv  rov  Ocov  Kol 
aXXoTpiov^  TU)v  evayyeXcoyv. 

It  is  quite  j)ossible  that  a  Father  may  have  shaped  Influence  of 
a  passage  to  fit  his  view  of  a  disputed  point.  Hence,  b?as!^*^^° 
passages  which  bear  upon  great  doctrinal  controversies 
must  be  examined  to  see  whether  they  exhibit  traces 
of  intentional  alteration  in  the  interest  of  doctrinal 
bias.  On  the  whole,  there  is  little  of  this.  The  worst 
that  can  be  charged,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  is 
a  tendency,  where  two  readings  exist,  to  prefer  the  one 
which  makes  for  the  writer's  view.  Some  other  cases 
may  be  set  down  to  ignorance  of  the  principles  of 
textual  criticism.  Thus  Tertullian  castigates  Marcion 
for  substituting  8ta/xept(7/xov  "division"  for  fxdxaipav 
"  a  sword,"  in  Luke  12  :  51.  "  Marcion,"  he  says, 
"must  needs  alter,  as  if  a  sword  could  do  anything 
but  divide."  But  Marcion  was  right,  and  Tertullian, 
quoting  from  memory,  had  in  mind  the  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Matt.  10  :  34.^ 

Again,  Tertullian  stigmatises  the  Valentinians  as 
adulterators  for  reading,  in  John  1 :  13,  61  iyewrjOrjaav, 
"which  were  born."  The  correct  reading,  he  main- 
tains, is  OS  iyevvrjOrj,  "  who  was  born,"  and  the  refer- 

1  Tert.  Adv.  Marc.  IV,  2. 


40 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Evidence 
of  patristic 
quotation  to 
be  cautious- 
ly used. 


ence  is  to  Christ.  But  the  reading  of  the  Valentinians 
was  correct,  and  Tertullian's  reading  was  absurd,  as 
the  context  shows. 

Similarly,  Ambrose  charged  the  Arians  with  erasing 
from  the  text  of  John  3  :  6,  the  words,  "  because  the 
Spirit  is  God  and  is  born  of  God,"  in  order  to  support 
their  denial  of  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But 
Ambrose  did  not  know  that  these  words  were  a  gloss 
which  had  been  incorporated  into  the  western  text, 
and  that  therefore  the  Arians  were  right  in  omit- 
ting it. 

Patristic  quotations  have  a  real  value  in  enabling 
us  to  fix,  at  least  approximately,  the  dates  at  which 
certain  readings  are  found.  Between  a.d.  170  and 
250  we  have  a  number  of  voluminous  writers ;  and  in 
the  extant  remains  of  Origen  alone  the  greater  part  of 
the  New  Testament  is  quoted.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
dates  of  the  earliest  manuscripts  and  of  some  of  the 
versions  cannot  be  fixed  with  absolute  certainty,  and 
the  dates  of  the  texts  which  they  contain  are  still 
more  uncertain.  Yet  it  is  to  be  remembered  that,  in 
case  of  a  disagreement  between  patristic  evidence  and 
manuscript  authority,  the  early  date  of  a  Father  is  no 
guarantee  for  the  value  of  his  evidence,  because,  con- 
temporary with  the  earliest  Fathers,  we  have  a  large 
amount  of  textual  corruption. 

It  is  therefore  evident  that  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  to  the  New  Testament  text  is  to  be  received 
with  great  caution,  and  not  without  the  support  of  the 
oldest  manuscripts  and  the  versions.  Wliere  these 
agree  with  patristic  testimony,  the  conclusion  is  as 
nearly  decisive  as  it  is  possible  to  reach.  A  striking 
instance  of  such  agreement  appears  in  the  case  of  the 
reading  in  Matt.  19  :  17 :  tl  fxe  epwras  -n-epl  Tov  dyaOov ; 
"  Why  dost  thou  ask  me  about  the  good  ?  "  as  against 
Tl  fi€  Xcycis  dya66v ',   "  Why  callcst  thou  me  good  ? " 


PATRISTIC  QUOTATIONS  41 

"  The  critic  must  be  sure  (1)  that  he  has  the  true  text  Specific 
of  his  author  before  him ;  (2)  what  passage  it  is  that  ^^^^^^o^^. 
the  author  is  quoting  (and  this  is  a  point  about  which 
it  is  very  possible  to  make  mistakes) ;  (3)  that  the 
quotation  is  deliberately  taken  from  a  manuscript  and 
not  made  freely  from  memory  and  intended  rather  as 
an  allusion  than  a  quotation;  and  (4)  what  precise 
reading  it  was  that  the  manuscript  presented.  In 
order  to  be  clear  on  these  points,  every  single  instance 
of  supposed  quotation  has  to  be  weighed  carefully 
with  its  context,  and  only  the  sifted  results  of  a  most 
extended  study  can  be  admitted  into  the  critical  ap- 
paratus." ^ 

The  most  important  sources  of  this  kind  of  evidence 
are  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian,  Irenseus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Hippolytus,  Origen,  Tertul- 
lian,  Cyprian,  Eusebius,  and  Jerome.^ 

1  Sanday,  Expositor,  1st  Ser.,  XI,  170. 

2  On  Patristic  quotations,  see  G.  N.  Bonwetsch  and  H.  Ache- 
lis.  Die  christliche  griechische  Schriftsteller  vor  Eusebius,  Kir- 
cheyivdter- Commission  cler  Berliner  Academie,  Bd.  I,  Leipzig, 
1897.  J.  W.  Burgon,  The  Revision  Revised,  London,  1883. 
LI.  J.  M.  Bebb,  Evidence  of  the  Early  Versions  and  Patristic 
Quotations  on  the  Text  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament, 
Studia  Biblica,  IT,  Oxford.  Lists  of  ancient  writers  in  Tischen- 
dorf,  Prolegomena ;  Scrivener's  Introduction  ;  andE.  C.  Mitchell, 
Critical  Handbook  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  New  York, 
1896. 


PART  n 

HISTOEY   or   THE   TEXTUAL    OKITIOISM   OP   THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 


CHAPTEE  V 

TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH 

Textual  Criticism   of  the   New   Testament  is  a 
modern   science,   although   attention  was  very  early 
directed  to  the  condition  of  the  New  Testament  text. 
Early  Corruptions  of  the  text  appeared  at  a  very  early 

appearance  date.  Reuss  says,  "It  may  be  asserted  with  toler- 
corruptions.  able  certainty  that  the  farther  back  we  go  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  text  the  more  arbitrarily  it  was  treated." 
Differences  between  New  Testament  manuscripts 
appeared  within  a  century  of  the  time  of  its  com- 
position, and  additions  and  alterations  introduced  by 
heretical  teachers  were  early  a  cause  of  complaint. 
Tischendorf  says,  "  I  have  no  doubt  that  in  the  very 
earliest  ages  after  our  Holy  Scriptures  were  written, 
and  before  the  authority  of  the  church  protected 
them,  wilful  alterations,  and  especially  additions, 
were  made  in  them."  Scrivener  says  that  the  worst 
corruptions  to  which  the  New  Testament  has  ever 
been  subjected,  originated  within  a  hundred  years 
after  it  was  composed,  and  Hort  agrees  with  him. 
Unlike  the  text  of  the  Koran,  which  was  officially 
fixed  from  the  first  and  regarded  as  sacred,  —  for  a 
century  and  a  half   at  least,   the   greatest  freedom 

42 


EABLT  CHURCH  43 

was  exercised  in  the  treatment  of  the  New  Testament 
writings.  These  writings  were  not  originally  regarded 
as  Holy  Scripture.  Copies  of  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles  were  made  for  the  use  of  individual  com- 
munities, and  with  no  thought  of  placing  them  on  the 
same  level  with  the  Old  Testament.  Accordingly, 
there  would  be  little  effort  at  x^^mctilious  accuracy, 
and  little  scruple  in  making  alterations. 

Variants  meet  us  as  soon  as  quotations  from  the 
apostolic  writings  occur  at  all  in  later  authors,  and 
that  both  in  catholic  and  heretical  writers.     Heretics  Work  of 
felt  the  necessity  of  seeking  for  their  peculiar  doC;  corrupting 
trines  a  support  which  should  secure  for  them  a  place  the  text, 
within  the  church  with  whose  tradition  they  were,  at 
many  points,  in  conflict.     Thus  they  were  driven  to 
interpret  the  apostolic  writings  in  harmony  with  their 
own  systems. 

Accordingly,  we  find,  in  the  earlier  Apologists, 
allusions  to  wilful  corruptions  and  misinterpretations. 
Thus,  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Hser.  Ill,  12)  declares  that  "  the 
others  (besides  Marcion),  though  they  acknowledge 
the  Scriptures,  pervert  their  interpretation."  Ter 
tullian  (De  Praesc.  H^r.  XXXVIII)  says  that  Mar- 
cion and  Valentinus  change  the  sense  by  their 
exposition.  "Marcion,"  he  continues,  "has  used  a 
sword,  not  a  pen;  while  Valentinus  has  both  added 
and  taken  away."  Marcion  mutilated  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  in  the  interest  of  his  antijudaistic  views, 
although  it  should  be  said  that  some  of  his  varia- 
tions were  doubtless  taken  from  manuscripts  in  circu- 
lation in  his  time.  Both  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius 
go  through  his  work  in  detail,  indicating  the  mutilar 
tion  point  by  point.  ^ 

1  See  J.  W.  Burgon,  The  Revision  Revised,  34,  35.  Tertullian, 
Adv.  Marc.  IV,  V.  Epiphanius,  Hcer.  XLII.  Examples  of 
Gnostic  interpretations  are  given  by  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Hcer.  I,  et 


44 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Origen's 
textual  com- 
ments. 


Manuscripts 
not  care- 
fully pre- 
pared. 


Reputed 
revision  by 
Hesychius 
and  Lucian. 


Such  perversions  called  forth  attempts  at  textual 
criticism.  Origen  (Comm.  on  Matthew)  remarks  on 
the  diversity  of  copies  arising  either  from  the  negli- 
gence of  scribes  or  the  presumption  of  correctors.  He 
frequently  discusses  various  readings,  and  comments 
upon  the  comparative  value  of  manuscripts  and  the 
weight  of  numerical  testimony.  He  seldom  attempts 
to  decide  on  the  right  reading,  being  rather  inclined  to 
accept  all  conflicting  readings  as  contributing  to  edi- 
fication. His  value  is  in  reproducing  the  character- 
istic readings  which  he  found.  There  is  no  sufficient 
evidence  of  a  general  revision  of  the  text  by  him,  as 
maintained  by  Hug. 

Again,  minute  care  was  not  exercised  in  the  prepa- 
ration of  manuscripts.  In  some  cases  they  appear  to 
have  issued  from  a  kind  of  factory,  where  the  work 
of  transcribing  was  carried  on  on  a  large  scale.  Por- 
tions of  the  same  manuscript  seem  to  have  been 
copied  from  different  exemplars  and  by  different 
hands,  and  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  thought 
necessary  to  compare  the  two  exemplars,  or  to  har- 
monise the  disagreements.  Moreover,  changes  of 
reading  were  introduced  by  individual  bishops,  who 
had  the  sole  authority  over  the  public  reading  of 
Scripture,  and  these  changes,  unless  very  violent, 
would  soon  become  as  familiar  as  the  old  readings, 
and  would  pass  into  the  versions.^ 

According  to  Jerome,^  Hesychius,  an  Egyptian 
bishop,  and  Lucian,  a  presbyter  and  martyr  of  Anti- 
och,  undertook  a  revision  of  the  New  Testament  text 
toward  the  close  of  the  third  century.     Our  informa- 

passim)  and  by  Origen  in  his  commentary  on  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

1  See  G.  Salmon,  Some  Criticism  of  the  Text  of  the  New 
Testament,  61,  78. 

a  Adv.  Bujinum,  II,  26  ;  De  Vir.  III.  77  ;  Ad  Damasum. 


EABLT  CHURCH  45 

tion  on  this  work,  however,  is  very  meagre.  Jerome 
speaks  of  it  slightingly,  and  the  Decretum  of  Pope 
Gelasius  I,  "  De  libris  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  " 
(496  A.D.),  the  genuineness  of  which,  however,  is  dis- 
puted, refers  to  Hesychius  and  Lucian  as  having  falsi- 
fied the  Gospels  into  Apocrypha.^ 

Harmonies  of  the  Gospels,  by  which  are  meant  con- 
structions of  a  single  continuous  narrative  out  of  the 
four,  like  that  of  Tatian,  had  a  tendency  to  foster 
alterations  made  in  order  to  bring  the  Gospels  into 
harmony  of  expression  as  well  as  of  substance.^ 

Of  this  Jerome  complains  (Ad  Damas.),  as  also  of  Jerome  com- 
the  transference  of  marginal  glosses  to  the  text.     He  aUerat^ons 
comments  on  the  number  of  recensions,  which  he  de-  ^^  ^^^  t®^- 
Clares  are  well-nigh  as  numerous  as  the  codices,  and 
urges  a  return  to  the  Greek  original,  and  a  correction 
of  those  things  which  have  been  falsely  rendered  by 
vicious   interpreters,  or  perversely  emended  by  pre- 
sumptuous ignoramuses.     In  his  own  revision  of  the 
New  Testament,  begun  about  382,  Jerome  displayed 
great  timidity,  and  chose  codices  which  did  not  differ 
widely  from  the  readings  of  the  Latin. 

We  repeat,  however,  that  textual  criticism  is  a 
modern  science,  and  cannot  be  said  to  have  really  ex- 
isted before  the  application  of  printing  to  the  New 
Testament  text.  In  our  discussion  of  its  history  it 
will  therefore  be  more  convenient  as  well  as  more 
interesting  to  combine  the  history  of  criticism  with 
that  of  the  printed  text. 

^  See  B.F.Westcott,  History  of  the  New  Testament  Canon, 
6th  ed.,  393,  note.  0.  von  Gebhardt,  article  "Bible  Text,"  in 
Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopcedia,  I,  270.  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  Westcott 
and  Hort's  Greek  Testament,  Introduction,  181.  E.  Reuss, 
Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments,  6th  ed., 
trans,  by  Houghton,  §§  367,  368. 

2  See  J.  Hamlyn  Hill,  The  Earliest  Life  of  Christ,  etc.,  31, 32. 


46 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Printing  was  applied  to  the  Old  Testament  much 
earlier  than  to  the  New.  The  Jews,  by  means  of  their 
numbers  and  wealth,  were  able  to  command  both  the 
skill  and  the  money  necessary  for  the  multiplication 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  and  there  was  a 
demand  among  them  for  Hebrew  books.  While  no 
printed  edition  of  the  New  Testament  was  made  before 
1514,  the  Hebrew  Psalter  was  issued  in  1477,  and  the 
entire  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  in  1488.  Portions 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  however,  were  printed  as 
early  as  1486  —  the  Hymns  of  Mary  and  Zacharias  — 
as  an  appendix  to  a  G-reek  Psalter,  and  the  first  six 
chapters  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  appeared  in  1504,  edited 
by  Aldus  Manutius  of  Venice. 

The  reason  for  this  delay  was  that  the  capture  of 
Constantinople  by  the  Turks  (1453),  and  the  conse- 
quent bondage  or  exile  of  the  Greek  population,  were 
nearly  contemporaneous  with  the  invention  of  printing, 
thus  hindering  the  efforts  of  the  Greeks  to  multiply 
copies  of  their  scriptures.  Many  of  the  exiled  Greeks 
earned  their  living  by  copying  Greek  books,  and  thus 
had  a  positive  interest  in  not  using  the  art  of  printing ; 
and  the  early  attempts  at  printing  Greek  were  clumsy, 
so  that  manuscript  was  preferred  for  reading.  "  So 
habituated  were  Greek,  scholars  in  that  day  to  read 
Greek  abounding  with  contractions,  many  of  which 
were  deemed  by  copyists  to  be  feats  of  calligraphy, 
that  the  endeavours  to  print  Greek  with  separate  types 
were  despised  and  undervalued  "  (Tregelles). 

The  Latin  Vulgate  reigned  supreme  and  unchallenged 
in  Western  Europe,  as  the  only  form  in  which  Scripture 
was  known  and  received.  Even  theologians  had  no 
desire  for  the  original  text.  The  Old  Testament  in 
Hebrew  was  regarded  as  a  book  for  Jews  only.  Latin 
was  held  to  be  the  only  proper  medium  for  the  in- 
struction   of    Christians,    and    all    departures    from 


EARLY  CHURCH 


47 


criticism. 


Jerome's  Version  were  suspected  as  dangerous  inno- 
vations.^ 

The  history  of  the  printed  text  of  the  New  Testa-  Periods  of 
ment  and  of  the  accompanying  development  of  textual  ment  oY  ^^ 
criticism  falls  into  three  periods :  (1)  The  period  of  textual 
the  reign  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  1516-1770;  (2)  The 
transition  period  from   the  Textus  Eeceptus  to  the 
older  uncial  text,  1770-1830;  (3)  The  period  of  the 
dethronement  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  and  the  effort 
to  restore  the  oldest  and  purest  text  by  the  application 
of  the  genealogical  method,  1830  to  the  present  time. 

1  The  Latin  Vulgate  was  first  published  at  Mayence  in  1455, 
in  two  volumes,  known  as  the  Mazarin  Bible.  The  German 
Bible  was  also  printed  before  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  original. 
At  least  fourteen  editions  of  the  High  German  Bible  were  printed 
before  1518,  and  four  of  the  Low  German  from  1480  to  1522. 
See  Fritzsche,  article  "Deutsche  Bibelubersetzungeu,"  in  Her- 
zog's  Real-Encyklopadie. 


CHAPTER   VI 

FIRST    PERIOD     (1516-1770).      THE    COMPLUTENSIAN 
POLYGLOT  AND   ERASMUS'S   GREEK  TESTAMENT 


Ximenes 
and  the 
Compluten- 
sian. 


First 

printed  but 
not  first 
published. 


Aldus  Manutius,  the  Venetian  publisher,  an  accom- 
plished scholar,  had  conceived  the  plan  of  a  Polyglot 
of  three  languages,  probably  as  early  as  1497 ;  and  in 
1501  he  submitted  a  proof-sheet  to  Conrad  Celtes,  a 
German  scholar.^ 

It  is,  however,  to  the  Spanish  cardinal,  Ximenes  de 
Cisneros,  Archbishop  of  Toledo,  that  the  honour  belongs 
of  preparing  the  first  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  New- 
Testament.^ 

It  was  intended  to  celebrate  the  birth  of  the  heir 
to  the  throne  of  Castile,  afterward  Charles  V.  The 
cardinal  employed  for  the  work  the  best  scholars  he 
could  secure,  among  whom  were  three  converted  Jews. 
The  most  eminent  was  James  Lopez  de  Stunica,  after- 
ward known  for  his  controversy  Avith  Erasmus.  The 
fifth  volume  of  the  work,  containing  the  New  Testa- 
ment, was  the  first  completed,  in  1514.  The  printing 
of  the  entire  work  was  completed  on  the  10th  of  July, 
1517.  But  though  the  first  printed,  this  was  not  the 
first  published  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament.  Pope 
Leo  X  withheld  his  approval  until  1520,  and  the  work 
was  not  issued  until  1522,  three  years  after  the  car- 
dinal's death,  and  six  years  after  the  publication  of 

1  The  Greek  Psalter,  in  the  preface  to  which  the  plan  is  an- 
nounced, is  undated. 

*  For  some  personal  notices  of  Ximenes,  see  Scrivener's  Intro- 
duction, II,  176. 

48 


(^ 


a  M 


?>^ 


°^SoO 


ex.  e 


o  o  O^ 


VJ      L-      !-!  -UJ        ♦ 


w  F- 


H   O   «5 


^    KJ-O 

2-D  ^ 


---     V    ^     «    ew     .*-»    Q 


o  0 

rf  C:  f-  I  o  X 


^^'^K.S 


o 


-    <<^  rr   ?%   L-  .^   r^   —   T*   X        v» 

I 


>  2 

>  t» 

o  ^ 

H  i" 


S    Q    £   .^  €  "C 

a  S  «  S  ci  « 


2  S  o  o  s^  *" 

C;    ?J    tJ   £2 


"E-^SsSf 


-O   « 


s| 


I  §"5 

lilgi 


S  « 'C  5  ^i  c| 

-6  vfc  n  2  n  'i 

^  c  .§- «  S  a 


THE  COMPLUTENSIAN  POLYGLOT  49 

Erasmus's   Testament.      The  entire   cost  was   about 
$115,000,  and  only  six  hundred  copies  were  printed. 

This  work  is  known  as  the  Complutensian  Polyglot, 
from  Complutum,  the  Latin  name  of  the  town  of  Alcala 
de  Henares,  the  seat  of  a  university,  in  the  district  of 
Guadalajara,  a  few  miles  to  the  northeast  of  Madrid, 
where  the  printing  was  done.  There  are  six  volumes, 
containing  the  Old  Testament  with  the  Apocrypha,  and 
the  New  Testament,  together  with  indices,  lexica,  and 
other  matter.  The  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  given  in  three  languages,  the  Latin  Vulgate 
occupying  the  place  between  the  Septuagint  and  the 
Hebrew.  As  announced  in  the  Prolegomena,  this 
arrangement  signified  that  Christ  (the  Roman  or  Latin 
Church)  was  crucified  between  two  robbers  (the  Jew- 
ish Synagogue  and  the  schismatical  Greek  Church). 
The  New  Testament  is  given  in  the  Greek  and  in 
the  Latin  Vulgate.  Its  title  is:  NOVUM  TESTA- 
MENTUM  GR.^CE  ET  LATINE  IN  ACADEMIA 
COMPLUTENSI  NOUITER  IMPRESSUM.  Par- 
allel passages  and  quotations  are  placed  in  the  Latin 
margin.     The  chapters  are  marked,  but  not  the  verses. 

The  text  of  the  Complutensian  was  reprinted  in  sev-  Reprints  of 
eral  successive  editions  at  Antwerp  and  Geneva,  and  ^^^  Complu- 
also  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  edited  by  Spaniards 
(1571-72),  in  the  great  Paris  Polyglot  (1630-33),  and  at 
Mayence  in  1753.  It  was  reedited  by  Professor  P.  A. 
Gratz  of  Tubingen,  along  with  the  Clementine  Vulgate, 
and  by  Leander  Van  Ess,  with  the  text  of  Erasmus  in- 
corporated (1827).  In  Stephen's  third  edition  (see  be- 
low) it  is  partially  connected  with  the  Textus  Receptus. 

The  important  question  —  What  manuscripts  were  whatmanu- 
used  in  the  preparation  of  the  New  Testament  text  ?  —  ^^^^^  were 
cannot  be  answered.     The  editors  name  but  one  manu- 
script (Codex  Rhodiensis,  Acts),  and  this  has  disap- 
peared.    They  describe  their  manuscripts  generally  as 


50  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

"  antiquissima  et  emendatissima,"  and  state  that  they 
were  furnished  by  Pope  Leo  X  from  the  Apostolic 
Library  at  Rome.  But  Leo  could  have  sent  no  New 
Testament  manuscripts,  since  he  was  elected  less  than 
a  year  before  the  New  Testament  was  printed.  The 
library  records  show  that  only  two  manuscripts  were 
sent  to  Ximenes  from  the  Vatican  in  Leo's  first  year, 
neither  of  which  contained  any  part  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament.^ The  catalogue  of  Biblical  manuscripts  in  the 
library  at  Alcala  consists  exclusively  of  Hebrew  and 
Latin  books,  except  two  containing  portions  of  the 
LXX.  The  story  that  all  the  New  Testament  manu- 
scripts at  Alcala  were  sold  as  useless  parchments  to  a 
rocket-maker,  in  1749,  is  without  foundation ;  since  all 
the  manuscripts  formerly  belonging  to  Ximenes  and 
preserved  at  Alcala  were  transferred  to  Madrid. 

It  need  not  be  doubted  that  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tors regarded  their  manuscripts  as  ancient  and  valu- 
able, and  intended  to  use  them  fairly.  The  charge  of 
Wetstein  and  Semler,  that  they  corrupted  the  text  by 
conforming  it  to  the  Latin,  is  not  sustained,  which  is 
the  more  remarkable,  in  view  of  the  almost  idolatrous 
reverence  for  the  Vulgate  indicated  in  their  preface. 
A  few  passages,  notably  1  John  5 : 7,  8,  afford  ground 
for  suspicion,  but  a  careful  comparison  shows  that, 
in  the  main,  they  followed  their  Greek  manuscripts. 
They  were  unskilled  in  criticism,  ignorant  of  the  value 
of  manuscripts,  and  editing  the  New  Testament  was  a 
quite  new  work.  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  used 
B,  or  any  manuscript  much  resembling  it  in  character, 
or  any  other  ancient  or  notably  important  document. 
Their  text  exhibits  affinities  with  certain  cursives  of 

1  Tregelles  (Printed  Text,  etc. ,  7)  maintains  that  the  statement 
of  the  editors  is  truthful,  and  that  both  Old  and  New  Testament 
manuscripts  were  furnished  from  the  Vatican.  He  makes  out  a 
very  feeble  case. 


THE  COMPLUTENSIAN  POLYGLOT  51 

the  eleventh,  twelfth,  and  thirteenth  centuries;  and.  Character  of 
almost  invariably,  wherever  manuscripts  of  the  thir-  tensian™ext' 
teenth,  fourteenth,  and  fifteenth  centuries  differ  from 
the  most  ancient  Greek  codices  and  from  the  quota- 
tions of  early  Greek  Fathers,  the  Complutensian  agrees 
with  the  modern  as  against  the  ancient.  The  text  does 
not  differ  widely  from  that  of  most  codices  written 
from  the  tenth  century  downward.^ 

The  first  published  edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testa-  First  pub- 
ment  was  due  to  the  enterprise  of  a  publisher,  Froben,  J^.^^^^  ^^^^ 
the  printer  of  Basle,  who,  having  heard  that  the  Span- 
ish Polyglot  was  in  preparation,  resolved  to  forestall 
it.  Accordingly  he  secured,  in  1515,  the  services  of 
Desiderius  Erasmus,  who  executed  the  task  of  prepar-  Erasmus, 
ing  an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  with  such  de- 
spatch that  the  work  appeared  March  1, 1516,  less  than 
six  months  from  the  commencement  of  the  printing. 
(Ecolampadius  assisted  in  the  correction  of  the  proofs. 
It  was,  of  course,  full  of  errors,  although  described  in 
the  preface  as  "  diligenter  recognitum  et  emendatum  " ; 
and  the  address  to  Pope  Leo  X  assured  the  Pontiff  that 
"  non  temere  neque  levi  opera,  sed  adhibitis  in  consil- 
ium compluribus  utriusque  linguae  codicibus  —  vetus- 
tissimis  simul  et  emendatissimis."  Erasmus  himself 
declared,  later,  that  it  was  '•'  precipitated  rather  than 
edited."  Dr.  Scrivener  says,  "Erasmus's  first  edition, 
in  respect  of  typographical  errors,  is  the  most  faulty 
book  I  know."  In  order  to  save  time,  he  even  used 
his  manuscripts  as  printers'  "  copy." 

1  On  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  see  Tischendorf,  Prolego- 
mena, 205  ff.  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  176  ff.  Tregelles, 
Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  Testament.  I.  M.  Goeze,  Vertheidi- 
gung  der  Comphitens.  Bibel,  Hamburg,  1765-69.  F.  Delitzsch, 
Studien  zur  Entstehungsgeschichte  der  Polyglottenhihel  des 
Cardinal  Ximenes,  Leipzig,  1871.  C.  I.  Hefele,  Der  Cardinal 
Ximenes,  2d  ed.,  Tubingen,  1851. 


52 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 


Manuscripts 
employed  by 
Erasmus. 


Erasmus's 
own  Greek 
in  the 
Apocalypse. 


It  formed  a  large  folio  of  1027  pages,  and  contained, 
along  with  the  Greek  text,  an  elegant  Latin  version, 
differing  in  many  respects  from  the  Vulgate.  For  this 
version  Erasmus  had  made  notes  several  years  before. 

Erasmus's  first  edition  was  based  on  a  very  few 
manuscripts.  Only  one  of  these  had  any  special  value 
(Codex  1,  Evang.  Act.  1,  P.  1,  tenth  century),  and  this 
he  almost  entirely  neglected,  indeed,  professed  to  hold 
it  in  slight  esteem.  The  basis  of  his  text  in  the  Gospels 
was  an  inferior  Basle  manuscript  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, and  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  one  of  the  thirteenth 
or  fourteenth  century.  With  these  he  collated,  more 
or  less  carefully,  one  other  manuscript  of  the  Gospels, 
two  in  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles,  and  three  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  None  of  these  was  earlier  than  the 
tenth  century.  Of  the  Apocalypse  he  had  but  a  single 
manuscript  of  the  twelfth  century,  of  which  Dr.  Hort 
says  that  with  many  individualisms  and  scantily  at- 
tested readings,  it  has  a  large  and  good  ancient  ele- 
ment and  ought  to  stand  very  high  among  secondary 
documents  (Greek  Testament,  Introduction,  263).  Of 
this  manuscript  the  last  six  verses  were  lacking.  These 
Erasmus,  who  was  a  better  Latinist  than  Grecian, 
turned  from  the  Latin  into  his  own  Greek.  Some  por- 
tions of  this  version,  which  are  to  be  found  in  no 
Greek  manuscript,  still  appear  in  the  Textus  Receptus.^ 

1  Such  are  dKaddprrjTOi  for  tA  dKddapra  ttjs,  XVII,  4.  The 
Greek  language  has  no  such  word  as  dKadapr-qs.  Kaiwep  iariv  for 
Kal  Trap^o-Toi,  XVII,  8.  Compare  Authorized  Version,  "  and  yet 
is."  As  late  as  1883  the  first  impression  of  the  Revision  of 
Luther's  Bible  by  the  German  Evangelical  Church  Conference 
left  this  standing  ;  and  it  was  not  removed  until  the  last  Revision 
in  1892.  'OpdpLv6s  for  vpwLvds,  XXII,  16.  'EX^^  for  epxov,  twice, 
and  Xafx^aviru)  for  Xa/3^Tw,  XXII,  17.  'A<paipri  for  d^A??,  and 
d<paLp-fi<x€L  for  d<f>e\et,  XXII,  19.  Instances  of  his  use  of  the 
Vulgate  in  order  to  amend  his  Greek  manuscripts,  where  he 
thought  them  defective,  are  found  in  his  notes  on  Acts  9 : 5, 


pr.ATE   V 


•111  1-5^4^1  f|j|||;5^ 


|.«^:s.i^"§  i-'s  ^J  sj  11  §  ^ 


,a  T?  ^     ^y* 


O     O  C2 


i  -T  ^  p  §  ^  '^  .t:  2 


i«»    >4    ''^    ,i    ^    H    ^  •"•  'S  ♦»-  .*-•    rt    ^ 


<u  cti  '^  ?^  *a  "ps  -JE  «  c  -r  ^i^  fi3  ■-:  »a}\3  ?ii 


s 


f  -I  «  e  K,  6  -s  -r  -I  -| 


1  '^   3 


"R-     1     e.     3      3 


^      h 

5  -» 


3      _' 


cO 


^  J  1^2  ^  ^  ^j  ^1  ^^  ^  J  ^1  I  ^S'L 


"^^'11  J  1  .?  I    I  ^    ?   .^   ^    - 


-*v» 


^     § 


1   ^^   -3 


S    2 


,Sf     S'  <^    c4   t3   ,S      2J 


<<    52     3      5      3     «     o    '£,'«     s?  -§    «^^     M  ?l*    S     O 


O 

S3 


i  s 

S  §  g 
J  'S  j2 

y  t  2 
Ti  G  a. 

Pi 

G 

t5 


F.VrSIMIT.E    OF    flAI^F    OF    THK     I.AST    PVOE     OF    ERAS:\irs"s    FlRST    EdITIOX    OF 

THK   Ctrekk  Testament,  showix(}  the  Verses  which   Erasmus   ren- 
dered FROM  THK  Vulgate  into  his  own  (tReek 


(Size  uf  original  page,  not  including  margins,  '^^  in.  x  5^  in.) 


THE  COMPLUTENSIAN  POLYGLOT  53 

Erasmus  also  refers  in  his  notes  to  other  manu- 
scripts seen  by  him  in  his  travels,  but  the  allusions 
are  indistinct,  and  some  of  the  readings  are  not  to  be 
found.  That  he  had  heard  of  B,  appears  from  Sepul- 
veda's  correspondence  with  him  in  1533.  Sepulveda 
speaks  of  a  "most  ancient  Greek  exemplar  in  the 
Vatican  Library,  containing  both  Testaments,  most 
carefully  and  accurately  written  in  uncial  characters, 
and  differing  greatly  from  ordinary  copies."  ^ 

While  the  work  was  heartily  welcomed  in  some  Attacks  on 
quarters,  it  was  unsparingly  condemned  in  others,  festament 
Erasmus's  revised  Latin  Version  was  regarded  as  a  pre- 
sumptuous innovation,  and  many  of  the  theologians  of 
the  day  were  displeased  by  the  annotations  in  which 
his  alterations  were  justified.  He  was  attacked  by 
Edward  Lee,  afterward  Archbishop  of  York,  and  by 
Stunica,  the  Complutensian  editor.  They  complained 
especially  of  the  omission  of  1  John  5 : 7.  Erasmus 
maintained  that  it  was  not  an  omission,  but  a  non- 
addition,  showing  that  even  some  Latin  copies  did  not 
contain  the  verse. 

Although  the  emperor  had  protected  Erasmus's  first  Reprinted 
edition  against  reprint  for  four  years,  it  was  repro-  Jf  ^^^.^^ 
duced  by  Aldus  Manutius,  with  some  variations,  but 
with  the  most  of  the  typographical  errors,  at  Venice,  in 
1518.     It  was  placed  at  the  end  of  the  Graeca  Biblia, 
the  Aldine  Septuagint. 

Erasmus  himself  published  four  other  editions. 
The  second  appeared  in  1519.     He  had  given  much 

6 ;  8  :  37.  This  manuscript  of  the  Apocalypse  was  borrowed 
by  Erasmus  from  Reuchlin,  and  was  retained  by  Froben,  who 
afterward  disposed  of  it.  It  lay  concealed  in  the  library  of 
the  family  of  Ottingen  at  Mayhingen,  until  discovered  in  1861 
by  Fr.  Delitzsch.  See  Delitzsch,  Handschriftliche  Funde,  I, 
1861-62. 

1  See  Scrivener's  Introduction,  1,  109. 


54 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Insertion  of 
lJohu6:7. 


Erasmus's  attention  in  the  meantime  to  examining  manuscripts 
lions ^^^'  ^^^  ^°  revising  his  own  Latin  Version;  and  having 
besides  more  leisure,  the  text  of  the  second  edition 
contained  many  corrections,  both  of  misprints  and 
readings,  the  latter  mainly  on  the  authority  of  a  fresh 
codex  of  the  twelfth  century.  It  contains,  however, 
several  pages  of  errors,  some  of  which  affected 
Luther's  German  Version.  Erasmus's  revision  of  his 
Latin  Version  called  out  fresh  attacks :  for  instance,  his 
substitution  of  "  sermo  "  for  "  verbum  "  in  John  1 : 1.^ 
The  third  edition,  1522,  differed  in  several  places 
from  the  text  of  the  preceding,  but  was  chiefly  re- 
markable for  the  insertion  of  1  John  5  :  7.  The  strong 
feeling  excited  by  its  omission  from  the  two  former 
editions  had  led  Erasmus  to  promise  that  he  would 
insert  it  if  it  could  be  found  in  any  Greek  manuscript. 
In  the  interval  between  1519  and  1522  there  came  to 
hand  a  manuscript  of  the  sixteenth  century,  described 
Codex  Mont-  by  Erasmus  as  Codex  Britannicus,  but  now  identified 
as  Codex  Montfortianus,  at  present  in  the  library  of 
Trinity  College,  Dublin.  Its  earliest  known  owner 
was  Froy  or  Roy,  a  Franciscan  monk,  who  is  believed 
by  some  to  have  written  the  codex  and  to  have  intro- 
duced the  words  from  the  Vulgate.  Erasmus  inserted 
them  in  the  third  edition,  but,  as  he  wrote  in  his  note, 
"ne  cui  sit  ansa  calumniandi."  He  continued  to  re- 
gard the  passage  as  spurious. 

The  fourth  edition,  1527,  contained  the  Greek,  the 
Vulgate,  and  Erasmus's  Version,  in  three  parallel  col- 
umns. Since  the  publication  of  the  third  edition  the 
Complutensian  had  come  into  circulation,  and  Erasmus 
availed  himself  of  it  to  make  certain  corrections,  and 

1  Dr.  Scrivener  justly  remarks  that  a  minute  collation  of  all 
Erasmus's  editions  is  greatly  to  be  desired.  The  number  of 
corrections  in  the  successive  editions,  as  given  by  Mill,  and 
repeated  on  Mill's  authority  by  Tregelles,  is  not  reliable. 


fortianus. 


edition. 


THE  COMPLUTENSIAN  POLYGLOT  55 

especially  to  revise  the  imperfect  text  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, though  he  did  not  correct  all  the  readings  which 
he  had  himself  manufactured  by  translating  from  the 
Latin.  With  this  exception  the  fourth  edition  differed 
little  from  the  third.  The  same  was  true  of  the  fifth 
edition,  published  in  1535,  which,  however,  omitted  the 
Vulgate,  and  retained  Erasmus's  own  Latin  Version.^ 

Colinaeus.  —  The  edition  of  Colin^eus  (Simon  de  Colinaeus's 
Colines),  Paris,  1534,  introduced  valuable  manuscript 
readings,  but  the  edition  could  not  be  called  critical 
The  examination  of  manuscripts  was  not  carried 
through.  The  Erasmian  readings  in  the  end  of  the 
Apocalypse  were  retained.  The  text,  generally  speak- 
ing, was  a  mixture  of  the  Erasmian  and  Compluten- 
sian.  The  edition  was  not  reprinted,  and  appears  to 
have  had  no  influence  on  those  which  succeeded  it.'^ 

1  See  Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  19-29.  Scrivener,  Introduction^ 
I,  199  f.  ;  II,  182-187,  401-407.  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena, 
207-211.  Fr.  Delitzsch,  Handschriftliche  Funds,  I,  Leipzig, 
1861.  J.  A.  Froude,  Life  and  Letters  of  Erasmus.  J.  Kendel 
Harris,  TTie  Origin  of  the  Leicester  Codex  of  the  New  Testament, 
46-53,  London,  1887.  0.  T.  Dobbin,  TJie  Codex  3Iontfortiamis, 
etc.,  London,  1854.  E.  Reuss,  Bibliotheca  Novi  Testamenti 
Groaci.  H.  C.  Hoskier,  A  Full  Account  and  Collation  of  the 
Greek  Cursive  Codex,  Evangelium  604,  Appendix  B,  the  vari- 
ous readings  by  the  fifth  edition  of  Erasmus  ;  Appendix  F,  re- 
port of  a  visit  to  the  public  library  at  Basle,  with  facsimile  of 
Erasmus's  second  manuscript,  Evang.  2,  London,  1890.  E. 
Nestle,  Einfuhrung  in  das  Griechische  Neue  Testament,  6-8. 
F.  J.  A.  Hort,  Greek  Testament,  Introduction,  103  ff. 

2  Both  Reuss  and  Nestle  are  disposed  to  estimate  Colinaeus's 
edition  highly.  Nestle  says  that  he  introduced  a  series  of  read- 
ings which  are  generally  acknowledged  at  this  day  ;  and  Reuss 
gives  a  list  of  fifty-two  passages  in  which  he  stands  alone  among 
early  editors.  Compare  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  188.  C.  R. 
Gregory,  in  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf 's Testament,  says,  "In 
fifty-two  places  of  those  examined  by  Reuss,  Colinaeus  furnishes 
several  readings  which  are  to-day  approved  by  many  learned 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  FIRST  PERIOD   (1516-1770).     THE  TEXTUS 
RECEPTUS 

Robert  Of  Robert  Stephen  (Estienne),  printer  at  Paris  and 

ediSons'^  protege  of  Francis  I,  it  has  been  said  that  his  biblical 
work,  taken  all  together,  had  perhaps  more  influence 
than  that  of  any  other  single  man  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  ^  His  first  two  editions,  1546,  1549,  were  in 
small  12mo,  printed  with  type  cast  at  the  expense  of 
Erancis,  and  issued  from  the  Royal  press.  They  are 
known  as  the  "  0  mirificam  "  editions,  from  the  open- 
ing words  of  the  preface,  "0  mirificam  Regis  nostri 
optimi  et  praestantissimi  Principis  liberalitatem."  In 
1550  appeared  the  third  edition,  in  folio,  also  from 
the  Royal  press,  inscribed  on  the  title-page,  BacnXel 
t'  ayaO<3  Kparepio  t'  alxfJt-rjTr},  in  honour  of  Henry  II,  and 
commonly  known  as  the  Editio  Regia.  Soon  after 
its  publication,  Stephen,  in  order  to  escape  from  the 
hounding  of  the  Sorbonne  theologians  and  the  censors 
of  the  press,  removed  to  Geneva,  where  he  issued  his 
fourth  edition,  small  12m  o,  in  1551.  The  text  of  the 
editions  of  1546  and  1549  was  a  compound  of  the 
Complutensian  and  Erasmian  texts.  ^ 

The  third  (folio)  edition,  the   text  of  which  was 

1  Wordsworth,  White,  and  Sanday,  Old  Latin  Biblical  Texts. 

2  Scrivener  says  that  his  own  collation  of  these  two  editions 
gives  139  divergencies  in  the  text  and  27  in  punctuation,  and 
that  in  the  Apocalypse  both  editions  adhere  closely  to  the  Eras- 
mian text,  differing  from  each  other  in  only  11  places. 

56 


THE   TEXTU8  RECEPTUS  57 

mainly  that  of  Erasmuses  fourth  and  fifth  editions, 
contained  marginal  readings  from  the  Complutensian, 
and  from  fifteen  manuscripts,  among  which  were  Codex 
Bezae  (D),  and  Codex  Parisiensis  (Evang.  L,  eighth 
century).  The  collation,  both  of  the  Complutensian 
and  of  the  manuscripts,  was  partial  and  slovenly. 
The  text  is  perpetually  at  variance  with  the  majority 
of  authorities.  Of  the  Complutensian  readings  many 
more  were  omitted  than  inserted,  and  the  Complu- 
tensian text  is  often  cited  incorrectly.  The  adoption 
of  Erasmus's  text  causes  nearly  three  hundred  depar- 
tures from  the  editions  of  1546  and  1549. 

This,  however,  was  the  first  collection  of  various  The  first 
readings  of  any  extent,  and,  however  defective,  was  of  yarfous^^  ^^ 
real  value  to  students.^  readings. 

The  fourth  edition,  16mo,  contained  two  Latin  Ver- 
sions, the  Vulgate  and  that  of  Erasmus,  on  either  side 
of  the  Greek  text.     The  text  was  mainly  that  of  the  First 
third   edition.     Here    the   division  of  the  text   into  oFverse^^^ 
verses  appears  for  the  first  time.^  division. 

1  The  manuscripts  collated  by  Stephen  have  been  identified. 
Tlie  two  uncials,  D  and  L,  are  both  important.  L,  of  the  Four 
Gospels,  is  remarkable  for  its  agreement  with  B,  the  citations 
of  Origen,  and  the  margin  of  the  Harclean  Syriac.  Scrivener 
characterises  it  as  "by  far  the  most  remarkable  document  of 
its  age  and  class."  The  cursives  are  of  the  tenth,  eleventh, 
twelfth,  and  thirteenth  centuries.  No.  10  (Acts,  Catholic  Epis- 
tles, Paul,  and  Apocalypse,  tenth  century)  has  considerable 
value  in  the  Apocalypse.  A  list  of  the  manuscripts  may  be 
seen  in  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  21.3.  Stephen's  third  edi- 
tion was  republished  by  Dr.  Scrivener,  Cambridge,  1859 ;  new 
edition,  1887,  and  again,  1887,  with  the  variations  of  the  prin- 
cipal editors  down  to  Westcott  and  Hort  and  the  Revisers. 

2  See  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  188-192.  Tischendorf, 
Prolegomena,  212  ff.  I.  H.  Hall,  on  "Chapters  and  Verses," 
Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopcedia,  1, 433.  Also  Journal  of  the  Society 
of  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis,  1883,  1891.  Ezra  Abbot, 
"De  Versibus,"  in  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  167-182.     H.  C. 


58 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Geneva 
Bible. 


Beza.  —  Theodore  de  Beze,  the  friend  and  successor 
of  CrJvin  in  Geneva,  and  an  eminent  classical  and 
biblical  scholar,  besides  his  own  Latin  Version  in 
1556,  issued  ten  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament : 
four  in  folio,  1565,  1582,  1588,  and  1598,  and  six  8vo, 
1565,  1567,  1580,  1591,  1604,  1611.  He  was  not  dili- 
gent in  collecting  fresh  material  for  the  correction  of 
the  text,  and  he  did  not  make  any  extensive  use  of 
his  own  D  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  Dg  (Claro- 
montanus)  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  sixth  century.  He 
was  shy  of  departures  from  the  text  of  Erasmus  and 
Stephen.  His  textual  basis  was  Stephen's  fourth 
edition,  from  which,  however,  he  occasionally  di- 
verged, sometimes  in  favour  of  the  Complutensian, 
and  sometimes  of  Erasmus,  and  occasionally  sub- 
stituting new  readings.  He  availed  himself  of  the 
Oriental  Versions,  employing  Tremellius's  Latin  Ver- 
sion of  the  Peshitto,  and  Franciscus  Junius's  Latin 
Translation  of  the  Arabic  Version.  However,  he  did 
not  make  much  use  of  these.  All  of  his  editions  vary 
somewhat  from  each  other,  as  well  as  from  those  of 
Stephen,  yet  there  is  no  material  difference  between 
any  of  them.  The  charge  of  selecting  his  readings  to 
suit  his  theological  opinions  (Scrivener,  II,  193)  should 
be  received  with  caution. 

Beza's  Latin  Translation  and  Commentary  were 
taken  as  a  guide  by  the  editors  of  the  Genevan  Bible, 
which  was  originally  published  in  1560,  and  with  a 
further  revision  of  the  New  Testament  in  fuller  har- 
mony with  Beza's  views,  in  1576.  The  title  was, 
"  The  iSTew  Testament  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  trans- 
lated out  of  Greek  by  Theodore  Beza."     This  work, 

Hoskier,  Account  and  Collation  of  Codex  604,  etc.  ;  Appen- 
dix B,  reprint  with  corrections  of  Scrivener's  list  of  differences 
between  Stephen,  1550,  and  the  Complutensian,  etc.  Tregelles, 
Printed  Text,  30  f. 


THE   TEXTUS  RECEPTU8  59 

though  never  formally  authorised,  exercised  the  most  ' 
marked  influence  of  all  the  early  translations  upon  the 
Authorised  Version  of  1611,  the  chief  foundations  of 
which  were  the  editions  of  1588  and  1598.  It  was  the 
Bible  of  the  household,  the  most  popular  in  England 
up  to  the  advent  of  King  James's  Version.  It  con- 
tinued to  be  reprinted  until  after  the  middle  of  the 
seventeenth  century ;  many  copies  were  brought  to 
America  by  immigrants,  and  it  passed  through  about 
one  hundi-ed  and  sixty  editions.^ 

The  merit  of  arranging  the  Oriental  Versions  in  a 
convenient  form  for  Biblical  study  belongs  to  the 
Antwerp  Polyglot,  issued  in  eight  volumes  folio,  TheAnt- 
under  the  patronage  of  Philip  II,  by  the  publisher,  ^^erp  Poly- 
Christopher  Plantin,  at  Antwerp,  1569-72,  and 
edited  by  the  Spanish  theologian,  Benedict  Arias 
Montanus.  The  Greek  text  appears  twice :  in  Vol.  V, 
with  the  Vulgate,  the  Syrian  text  and  its  Latin  Trans- 
lation, and  in  Vol.  VI,  with  the  interlinear  version  of 
Arias.  The  text  is  mainly  that  of  the  Complutensian, 
but  agrees  in  a  few  places  with  Stephen,  twice  with 
Erasmus,  and  once  presents  a  new  reading.  Thirteen 
copies  were  printed  on  vellum.  The  British  Museum 
has  the  one  prepared  for  the  Duke  of  Alva.^ 

We  now  begin  to  see  attention  called  to  the  value  Attention 
of  patristic  quotations  in  determining  the  text.    Lucas  patristk;*^ 
Brugensis,  in  1580,  prepared  annotations  on  the  entire  quotations. 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  214-216.  Scrivener,  Intro- 
duction^ II,  192  f.  J.  Eadie,  History  of  the  English  Bible,  II, 
XXXII-XXXVII.  Reuss,  Bihliotheca  Novi  Testamenti.  Arti- 
cle "Beza,"  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopoedia.  B.  F.  Westcott, 
Histoj-y  of  the  English  Bible,  296,  297. 

2  See  E.  Nestle,  Einfuhrung,  etc.,  10.  Tischendorf,  Prolego- 
mena, 215  f.  M.  Eooses,  Chnstopher  Plantin,  Imprimeur  An- 
versois,  Antwerp,  1884.  Id.,  Plantin,  C.  Correspondance,  Gand, 
1886.  Le  Degeorge,  La  Maison  Plantin  a  Anvers,  3d  ed. ,  Paris, 
1886. 


60  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

Bible,  from  Greek  and  Latin  Codices,  and  from  the 
Syriac  Version ;  and  in  1606  edited  the  four  Gospels 
with  a  Commentary  from  Plantin's  Polyglot,  and 
with  little  change  of  the  text.  Hugo  Grotius,  Poly- 
glotta  Londinensia,  freely  uses  patristic  testimony.^ 

On  a  still  larger  scale  was  the  Paris  Polyglot  of 
Guy  Michel  Jay,  ten  volumes  folio.  Jean  Morin  and 
Gabriel  Sionita,  a  Maronite,  were  the  principal  col- 
laborators in  preparing  the  Oriental  texts.  The  two 
volumes  of  the  New  Testament  appeared  in  1630  and 
1633.  To  the  texts  of  the  Antwerp  Polyglot  it  added 
a  Syrian  Version  of  the  contested  books  —  2  Peter,  2 
and  3  John,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse  —  and  an  Arabic 
Version  with  a  Latin  rendering.  The  text  was  that 
of  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  with  a  very  few  changes.^ 

The  Elzevirs  and  the  Textus  Receptus.  —  The  brothers 
Bonaventure  and  Abraham  Elzevir  established  a  press 
at  Leyden,  and  issued  seven  successive  editions  :  1624, 
1633,  1641,  1656,  1662,  1670,  1678.  An  8vo  edition 
was  printed  by  them  for  Whittaker  of  London,  in  1633, 
with  notes  by  Robert  Stephen,  Scaliger,  Casaubon,  and 
others,  and  was  also  issued  at  Leyden  with  a  new 
title-page  in  1641.  The  Elzevirs'  four  later  editions 
were  printed  in  Amsterdam.  Their  Testaments  were 
very  popular  because  of  their  small  and  convenient 
size  and  their  neat  text.  The  text  of  the  edition  of 
1624  was  drawn  chiefly  from  Beza's  1565,  1582,  1589, 
and  1598,  especially  the  last,  besides  Erasmus,  the 
Complutensian  and  the  Vulgate.  The  second  edition 
(1633)  had  the  verses  broken  up  into  separate  sen- 
tences, instead  of  having  their  numbers  indicated  in 
the  margin  as  in  the  edition  of  1624.  This  edition  is 
notable  in  the  history  of  textual  criticism  as  contain- 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  216,  221,  1132. 

2  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  220.    Nestle,  EinfWhrung, 

n. 


THE  TEXTUS  RECEPTUS  61 

ing  the  announcement :  "  Textum  ergo  habes  nunc  AB  Textus 
OMNIBUS  RECEPTUM  in  quo  nihil  immutatum  aut  ftS^!' 
corruptum  damus."  This  is  the  origin  of  the  famil-  ence. 
iar  phrase  Textus  Receptus.  To  this  text  an  almost 
idolatrous  reverence  has  attached  nearly  down  to  the 
present  time.  The  history  of  the  textual  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament  is,  largely,  the  story  of  gradual 
emancipation  from  the  tyranny  of  the  Textus  Re- 
ceptus. It  has  been  slavishly  followed  with  slight 
diversities  in  hundreds  of  editions,  and  substantially 
represented  in  all  the  principal  Protestant  translations 
prior  to  the  present  century.  In  some  cases  attempts 
to  criticise  or  amend  it  have  been  regarded  as  akin  to 
sacrilege.  Yet  this  sacred  text  is  essentially  that  of 
the  last  edition  of  Erasmus,  framed  from  a  few  mod- 
ern and  inferior  manuscripts  and  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  in  the  very  infancy  of  Biblical  criticism. 
In  more  than  a  score  of  places  it  is  supported  by  the 
authority  of  no  Greek  manuscript  whatever.  The  term 
"Textus  Receptus"  is,  in  itself,  untruthful.  It  was 
put  forth  simply  as  a  clever  advertisement  of  an  enter- 
prising publisher.  The  edition  which  bore  this  pre- 
tentious announcement  varied  somewhat  from  that  of 
1624  in  the  correction  of  some  of  the  worst  misprints, 
though  it  retained  others  equally  bad,  and  added  a  few 
of  its  own. 

The  term  is  differently  applied  in  England  and  on  Different 
the  Continent :  in  England  to  Stephen's  text  of  1550,   o^^JJef j^^^^ 
and  on  the  Continent  to  the  Elzevir  of  1633.     The 
differences  between  these  two  amount,  according  to 
Scrivener,  to  287.^ 

1  The  reverence  for  the  Textus  Receptus,  and  its  unhappy 
effect  in  retarding  the  progress  of  a  sound  textual  criticism, 
may  be  seen  in  Dean  J.  W.  Burgon's  Bemsion  Revised,  Lon- 
don, 1883,  in  the  works  of  Dr.  Scrivener,  and  in  the  views  of 
the  Rev.  E.  Miller,  in  the  Oxford  Debate  on  the  Textual  Criti- 


62 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 


The  best  textual  scholarship  of  the  present  day  re- 
pudiates the  Textus  Receptus  as  a  textual  basis.  The 
latest  and  best  Concordance  to  the  New  Testament 
(Moulton  and  Geden,  1897)  entirely  ignores  its  read- 
ings.^ 

cism  of  the  New  Testament^  London,  1897.  The  Expositor''s 
Greek  Testament  (I,  1897),  edited  by  W.  Kobertson  Nicoll,  and 
professing  to  give  the  latest  results  of  critical  scholarship,  adopts 
the  Receptus  as  its  textual  basis.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  to  circulate  in  Germany  only 
reprints  of  the  Textus  Receptus.  As  late  as  1893-94  that  society 
printed  at  Cologne  over  twelve  thousand  copies  of  this  text,  and 
went  on  to  circulate,  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  about  six- 
teen hundred  copies  per  annum.  In  order  to  counteract  this,  the 
Wiirttemburgian  Bible  Society  at  Stuttgart  published  last  year 
a  Greek  Testament  with  a  critically  revised  text,  based  on  a  col- 
lation of  the  editions  of  Tischendorf,  Westcott  and  Hort,  Wey- 
mouth, and  Bernhard  Weiss,  adding  for  the  Gospels  and  Acts  a 
selection  of  manuscript  readings,  chiefly  from  Codex  Bezae.  It 
is  an  admirable  specimen  of  typography,  and  can  be  purchased 
for  about  twenty-five  cents. 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  216  ff.  Scrivener,  Introduc- 
tion, II,  193-195.  A.  Willems,  Les  Elzevier :  Histoire  et 
Annccles  Typngraphiqnes,  Bruxelles  et  Paris,  1880.  F.  H.  A. 
Scrivener,  The  Neio  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek  according 
to  the  Text  foUoiced  in  the  Authorised  Version,  together  loith  the 
Variations  adopted  in  the  Bevised  Version,  Cambridge,  1881. 
He  gives  a  list  of  the  passages  in  which  the  Authorised  Version 
departs  from  the  readings  of  Beza,  1598.  H.  C.  Hoskier,  A 
Full  Account  and  Collation  of  the  Greek  Cursive  Codex  Evang. 
6O4.  Appendix  C,  a  full  and  exact  comparison  of  the  Elzevir 
editions  of  1624  and  1633. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

THE   FIRST  PERIOD   (1516-1770).     THE   BEGINNINGS 
OF   A  CRITICAL  METHOD 

We  have  now  reached  the  point  where  the  prepara-  Summary 
tion  for  effective  criticism  begins.  Up  to  this  time  the  restafs^o 
w^ork  had  been  chiefly  the  collection  and  registering  of  1628. 
evidence.  Manuscripts  were  collated,  and  their  vari- 
ous readings  noted,  but  no  comparison  of  them  was 
attempted.  In  the  earlier  editions  the  evidence  was 
scanty  in  amount  and  inferior  in  quality.  The  prin- 
cipal uncials  were  either  unknown  or  inaccessible. 
Neither  D  or  Do  were  much  used  by  Beza,  who  held 
closely  by  the  texts  of  Erasmus  and  Stephen.  The 
Oriental  Versions  had  been  printed  in  the  Antwerp 
Polyglot,  but  were  used  by  Beza  only  to  a  limited  ex- 
tent and  through  Latin  translations.  Lucas  Brugen- 
sis  and  Grotius  had  only  broken  ground  in  the  matter 
of  patristic  citations.  The  text  of  the  Vulgate  w^as 
faulty,  and  revisions  like  those  of  Erasmus  and  Beza 
were  suspected  and  frowned  upon  by  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities.  The  body  of  manuscript  evidence  amassed 
by  the  Stephens  was  imperfectly  collated  in  the  edi- 
tion of  1550.  Though  the  authorities  stand  in  the 
margin,  the  text  is  perpetually  at  variance  with  the 
majority  of  them,  and,  in  119  places,  with  all  of  them. 
No  fixed  principles  regulated  the  occasional  applica- 
tions of  the  manuscript  readings  to  the  construction  of 
the  text.     Neither  the  true  value  of  various  readings 

63 


64 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


nor  the  necessity  for  accuracy  in  collation  was  appre- 
ciated or  understood.  With  the  occasional  adoption 
of  fresh  manuscript  readings,  mostly  of  a  common  and 
late  type,  the  text  remained  substantially  Erasmian, 
with  some  modifications  from  the  Complutensian,  ex- 
cept in  those  editions  which  had  a  Complutensian 
basis.  The  crystallisation  into  a  fixed  and  received 
text  which  followed  was  due  mostly  to  the  beauty  of 
the  Stephen  and  Elzevir  editions,  and  to  the  preten- 
tious and  groundless  advertisement  of  the  Leyden 
printers.  The  Textus  Keceptus  perpetuated  some  of 
the  grossest  errors  of  Erasmus. 

The  impulse  to  a  new  development  of  textual  science 
was  given  in  England,  about  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  through  the  gift,  in  1628,  of  the  Alex- 
andrian manuscript  to  Charles  I,  by  Cyril  Lucar,  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  France  contributed  a 
powerful  auxiliary  in  Richard  Simon,  whose  writings 
had  a  large  share  in  undermining  the  general  acquies- 
cence in  the  Received  Text.^ 

Walton's  Polyglot.  —  In  England  the  way  was  led 
by  Brian  Walton,  afterward  Bishop  of  Chester,  with 
his  London  Polyglot,  issued  in  1657  in  six  volumes 
folio.  The  fifth  volume,  containing  the  New  Testa- 
ment, gives  Stephen's  text  of  1550,  with  the  readings 
of  A  at  the  foot.  This  notation  marks  the  origin  of 
the  practice  of  designating  the  uncials  by  capitals. 
The  sixth  volume  is  devoted  to  a  critical  apparatus 
gathered  from  a  number  of  authorities,  including  D,  Dg, 

1  Simon's  principal  works  on  the  New  Testament  were :  Ilis- 
toire  Critique  du  Texte  du  Nouveau  Testament^  Rotterdam, 
1689 ;  Histoire  Critique  des  Principaux  Commentateiirs  du 
Nouveau  Testament  .  .  .  avec  une  Dissertation  Critique  sur 
les  Principaux  Actes  Manuscrits,  Rotterdam,  1693.  Reuss 
says  that  Simon  surpassed  all  his  predecessors  and  his  succes- 
sors for  a  long  time  after,  in  point  of  sound  historical  learning, 
acumen,  and  comprehensive  grasp  of  the  materials. 


PLATE   VI 


t' 


X 


U4 


I 

i 


<  ^ 

•oo 

<< 

^: 

CO   [_4 

So 
c 
< 

<  >• 


ij 


rsl 


ri 


lifii 

rtii^ 

nm 

jitl! 

a  rii 

1  .  »  « 

iflH 

^a?^ 

iil}' 

.  1'j^ 

lIlH 

1^   J.. 

<;  .1  'H 


1  ^1  3 


C|s 


\         "ZL  ^  -S    -Q    ,n    : 


:l.'^2 


■«■»' 


--b  II  ..  =■ 


i|-S51l 


»-  ^       i.  ..  -r  ^ 


ft  "=  ^-.^<j='-~:^ 

"  mm 


Facsimile   of   Extracts   from  a  PA(iK  of   Waltox's   Poi.yolot,  showino  the 
Versions  of   Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Chai'tkr  I,  in  Latin,  Greek, 
Syriac,  and  Ethiopic,  on  the  same  Page 
(Size  of  oii^'inal  page,  fi-oiu  which  one-half  has  been  reproduced,  l.^/jin.  x  0^  in.,  not  including,'  margins.) 


SIMON  AND   WALTON  65 

and  the  copies  in  Stephen's  margin.  The  most  of  these 
authorities  had  never  been  used  before.  Of  the  manu- 
scripts, which  include  the  famous  Codex  Montfortianus 
(see  under  Erasmus),  three  are  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, one  of  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth,  three  of  the 
twelfth,  and  one  of  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth.  Two, 
Evang.  59  and  Act.  36,  are  valuable.  Walton  also  gave 
the  Velesian  and  Wechelian  readings,  which  were  of 
no  value.^  Besides  the  Greek  text,  the  Polyglot  con- 
tained the  Latin  Vulgate,  the  Peshitto,  Ethiopic  and 
Arabic  Versions,  besides  a  Persian  Version  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  the  later  Syriac  of  the  five  books  not  con- 
tained in  the  Peshitto  (2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  Jude, 
Apocalypse).  Each  Oriental  Version  was  accompanied 
by  a  collateral  Latin  translation.-  Walton's  work  thus 
consisted  in  adding  to  the  materials  of  criticism.  The 
versions  in  the  fifth  volume  furnish  a  valuable  store  of 
material.     He  is  charged,  however,  with  suppressing 

1  The  Velesian  readings  were  a  collection  written  in  vermilion 
in  the  margin  of  a  copy  of  Stephen's  Editio  Regia  by  Faxardo, 
Marquis  of  Velez,  a  Spaniard,  who  was  said  to  have  taken  them 
from  sixteen  manuscripts,  eight  of  which  were  in  the  Escorial. 
They  were  afterward  shown  to  have  been  collected  by  Velez 
from  Latin  manuscripts. 

The  Wechelian  readings  were  from  the  margin  of  a  Bible 
printed  at  Frankfurt,  1597,  by  the  heirs  of  Andi-ew  Wechel. 
All  of  these  readings  are  found  in  Stephen's  margin,  or  in  the 
early  editions. 

2  Walton  was  a  Royalist  during  the  Civil  War,  and  was  chap- 
lain to  Charles  I ;  but  the  Polyglot  was  published  under  the 
patronage  of  Cromwell,  who  allowed  the  paper  to  be  imported 
free  of  duty.  After  the  Restoration,  Walton,  appointed  Bishop 
of  Chester  by  Charles,  issued  a  new  preface,  in  which  Cromwell 
was  styled  "maximus  ille  draco."  Accordingly  there  are  two 
kinds  of  copies, —  the  Bepiiblican,  with  compliments  to  Crom- 
well in  the  preface,  but  with  no  dedication,  and  the  Loyal,  dedi- 
cated to  Charles  II.  This  was  the  first  work  published  ^^ 
subscription  in  England. 


66 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


CurcellfEus's 
Testament. 
Reacts  un- 
favourably 
upon  Wal- 
ton's Poly- 
glot. 


a  large  part  of  the  collations  which  had  been  sent  to 
him.^ 

Curcellaeus.  —  One  year  after  the  publication  of 
Walton's  Polyglot,  appeared  the  Greek  Testament 
of  Stephen  Curcellaeus,  or  Courcelles,  with  a  learned 
introduction,  parallel  texts,  and  many  various  read- 
ings, some  from  two  or  three  fresh  manuscripts.  He 
repeated  the  Elzevir  text  of  1633,  with  a  few  changes, 
enclosing  1  John  5 : 7  in  brackets.  He  did  not,  how- 
ever, give  the  authorities  for  his  readings,  and  those 
drawn  from  manuscripts  were  mingled  with  conjec- 
tures of  his  own.  As  these  conjectures  were  mani-. 
festly  shaped  by  Socinian  views,  his  Testament  tended 
to  discourage  critical  study  as  something  aimed  at  the 
integrity  and  authority  of  Scripture.  Its  appearance 
so  soon  after  Walton's  Polyglot  reacted  unfavourably 
upon  the  latter,  and  created  alarm  at  the  collection  of 
readings  presented  by  Walton.  The  principal  merit 
of  Curcellaeus's  Testament  consists  in  his  collection  of 
parallel  texts.  In  his  preface  he  gives  an  account  of 
the  earlier  editions,  and  asserts  that  it  is  not  yet  time 
to  judge  of  readings,  but  to  collect  and  preserve  them  ; 
and  that  the  suppression  of  them  is  the  real  source  of 
the  increasing  corruption.'^ 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  220.  Scrivener,  Introduc- 
tion, II,  197  ff.  J.  Rendel  Harris,  Origin  of  the  Leicester  Codex 
of  the  New  Testament,  London,  1887.  Henry  Stevens,  7'Ae 
Bibles  in  the  Caxton  Exhibition,  London,  1877.  John  Owen, 
Of  the  Integrity  and  Purity  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, with  Considerations  on  the  Prolegomena  and  Appendix  to 
the  late  Biblia  Polyglotta,  Oxford,  1659.  B.  Walton,  The  Con- 
siderator  Considered,  London,  1659.  S.  P.  Tregelles,  Printed 
Text,  etc.,  38.  H.  J.  Todd,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings 
of  Brian  Walton,  together  vnth  the  Bishop's  Vindication  of  the 
London  Polyglot  Bible,  London,  1821.  E.  Reuss,  article  "  Poly- 
glottenbibeln"  in  Herzog's  Beal-Encyklopadie. 

2  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  222.  Scrivener,  Introduc- 
tion, II,  198.     Tregelles,  Pnnted  Text,  39. 


CURCELL^US,  FELL,  AND  MILL  67 

Fell.  —  It  was  with  a  view  to  counteract  the  unfavour- 
able impression  created  by  Walton  and  Curcellseus, 
that  John  Fell,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  and  subse- 
quently Bishop  of  Oxford,  issued  his  Greek  Testament 
at  Oxford  in  1675.  It  was  of  small  size,  with  the 
various  readings  at  the  foot  of  the  pages,  along  with 
the  authorities  by  which  they  were  supported.  The 
title-page  announced  that  the  text  was  drawn  from 
more  than  a  hundred  manuscripts.  The  margin  con- 
tained citations  from  the  Memphitic  and  Gothic  Ver- 
sions. He  gave  the  readings  of  a  very  few  manuscripts 
not  previously  collated,  and  added  in  his  appendix  the 
Barberini  collection  of  readings.^ 

Fell's  text  was  mainly  that  of  the  Elzevir  of  1633. 
Little  attention  was  given  to  patristic  testimony.- 

Mill.  —  Walton,  Curcellgeus,  and  Fell,  particularly 
the  last,  prepared  the  way  for  John  Mill,  whose  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  published  in  folio,  Oxford, 
1707,  marked  the  foundation  of  textual  criticism.  His 
preparations  for  the  work  were  begun  about  1677,  and 
were  encouraged  and  promoted  by  Fell,  and  later  by 
the  patronage  of  Queen  Anne.  His  merit  was  largely 
that  of  a  collector  of  critical  material.  He  gave  much 
attention  to  patristic  testimony,  and  also  to  the  Yul- 

1  This  was  a  collection  made  by  John  Matthew  Caryophilus 
of  Crete,  about  1625,  with  a  view  to  an  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  It  is  described  as  "  Collationes  Grseci  contextus 
omnium  librorum  Novi  Testamenti  juxta  editionem  Antverpien- 
sem  regiam  cum  XXII  codicibus  antiquis  MSS.' '  This  was  edited 
by  Peter  Poussin  in  1673,  and  was  found  in  the  Barberini  Library 
at  Rome,  in  1785,  by  Andrew  Birch,  along  with  the  petition  of 
Caryophilus  to  Pope  Paul  V  for  the  loan  of  six  manuscripts  in 
the  Vatican.  These  included  B,  and  S  (tenth  century),  which  is 
among  the  earliest  dated  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
The  Barberini  readings  often  favour  the  Latin  Version,  and  have 
been  superseded. 

2  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  222.  Scrivener,  Litroduc- 
tion,  II,  199  f.     Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  40. 


68 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Fore- 


method. 


gate  and  Itala.  His  knowledge  of  Oriental  languages 
was  limited,  so  that  he  was  obliged  to  depend  mainly 
on  the  Latin  translations  in  Walton's  Polyglot. 

As  a  collator,  he  was  not  accurate  according  to  the 
modern  standard  of  textual  scholarship.  He  collected 
rather  than  classified  manuscripts,  although  he  fre- 
quently records  his  judgment  of  the  value  of  readings, 
and  exhibits  a  foreshadowing  of  the  genealogical 
shadows  the  method  in  noting  relationships  between  manuscripts, 
"'  '*  '  and  between  manuscripts  and  particular  versions. 
The  catalogue  of  his  manuscripts  may  be  seen  in  Tisch- 
endorf.  Prolegomena,  226.  He  made  no  attempt  to 
construct  a  new  text,  but  used  that  of  Stephen's 
3d  ed.,  varying  from  it  in  a  few  places.  His  Prole- 
gomena consisted  of  three  parts:  (1)  The  canon  of 
the  New  Testament.  (2)  The  history  of  the  text, 
including  quotations  of  the  Fathers  and  early  editions. 
(3)  The  plan  and  contents  of  his  own  work.  Of  the 
Prolegomena  Dr.  Scrivener  says,  "Though  by  this 
time  too  far  behind  the  present  state  of  knowledge  to 
bear  reprinting,  they  comprise  a  monument  of  learning 
such  as  the  world  has  seldom  seen,  and  contain  much 
information  the  student  will  not  even  now  easily  find 
elsewhere."  His  New  Testament  was  republished  in 
folio,  in  1710,  at  Amsterdam  and  Rotterdam,  by 
Ludolph  Kuster,  who  arranged  in  its  proper  places 
the  matter  which  Mill  had  put  into  his  appendix, 
because  he  had  received  it  too  late  for  incorporation 
into  his  critical  notes.  He  added  the  readings  of 
twelve  fresh  manuscripts.  He  was  the  first  to  give  a 
definite  statement  of  the  number  of  various  readings 
in  the  New  Testament  text,  estimating  them  at  thirty 
thousand,  a  number  which  appears  trifling  in  the  light 
of  later  critical  results.^ 

1  Mill's  Testament  was  attacked  by  Dr.  Whitby  in  1710.    The 
details  of  the  controversy  may  be  read  iu  Tregelles's  Printed 


First  esti- 
mate as  to 
number  of 
variations. 


MAESTRICHT,    TOINARD,  AND    WELLS        69 


Gerhard  von  Maestricht,  Toinard,  Wells.  —  The  year 
after  tlie  appearance  of  Kuster's  Mill,  Gerhard  von 
Maestricht  published  at  Amsterdam  a  New  Testament 
in  8vo,  containing  all  the  critical  matter  of  Fell's 
edition,  a  collation  of  one  Vienna  manuscript,  forty- 
three  canons  for  the  examination  of  various  readings 
and  discussions  upon  them,  with  other  matter,  es- 
pecially parallel  texts.  The  text  is  Fell's.  A  second 
improved  edition  was  issued  in  1735.  This  appears 
to  have  been  the  first  attempt  to  lay  down  canons  for 
various  readings.-^ 

The  Evangeliorum  Harmonia  Grceco-Latina  of  Nich- 
olas Toinard,  of  Orleans,  was  published  in  the  same 
year  as  Mill's  New  Testament.  Toinard  was  the 
first  Eoman  Catholic  since  Erasmus,  and  the  last  be- 
fore Scholtz  (1830),  who  undertook  a  critical  edition. 
In  his  Prolegomena  he  announces  that  he  has  made  a 
Greek  Testament  according  to  the  two  oldest  Vatican 
codices  and  the  Old  Latin  Version,  where  it  agreed 
w4th  them.  He  was  thus  working  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple afterward  proposed  by  Bentley.^ 

Edward  Wells  put  forth  an  edition,  1709-19,  in  ten 
parts,  containing  a  Greek  text,  an  English  version 
and  paraphrase,  critical  and  exegetical  notes,  and 
historical  dissertations.  More  boldly  than  his  prede- 
cessors, he  introduced  new  manuscript  readings  into 
the  text.    His  text  was  marked  by  frequent  departures 

Text.  It  called  out  Richard  Bentley's  celebrated  monograph, 
liemarks  upon  a  Discourse  of  Free-thinking,  by  Phileleiitherus 
Lipsiensis.  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  224-227.  Scrive- 
ner, Litroduction,  II,  200.  Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  41-49. 
Ilort,  Westcott  and  Hort's  Xeio  Testament,  Introduction,  180. 
J.  II.  Monk,  Life  of  Richard  Bentley,  D.D.,  London,  1833. 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  229.  Scrivener,  Introduc- 
tion, II,  204. 

2  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  227  f.  Reuss  characterises 
the  Harmonia  as  "  liber  rarissimus." 


Gerhard  von 

Maestricht's 
Testament. 


Toinard's 
Harmonia. 


Wells's 
Testament. 


70 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Bentley's 
Proposals. 


Bentley's 
hypothesis. 


from  the  Elzevir,  and  his  agreement  with  later  critics, 
as  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf,  is  note- 
worthy.^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  Toinard  and  Wells  there 
appear  signs  of  restlessness  under  the  pressure  of  the 
Textus  Receptus,  a  growing  tendency  to  emphasise 
manuscript  authority,  and  attempts  at  a  reconstruction 
of  the  text;  while  in  Gerhard  von  Maestricht,  as  in 
Mill,  we  see  signs  of  a  movement  toward  the  classifi- 
cation of  documents. 

Bentley.  —  This  "  glimpse  of  the  genealogical 
method,"  which  was  the  most  important  contribution 
to  the  criticism  of  the  period  between  Mill  and  Lach- 
mann, received  a  more  definite  development  in  the 
Proposals  of  Richard  Bentley,  Master  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge.  In  1691  he  had  urged  Mill  to 
publish  in  parallel  columns  the  Greek  text  of  A  and 
the  Graeco-Latin  texts  of  D,  D^,  and  Eo.  In  1720  he 
issued  his  Proposals  for  printing  an  edition  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  and  the  New  Testament  of  the 
Vulgate  Version,  "  per  Stum.  Hieronymum  ad  vetusta 
exemplaria  Graeca  castigatse  et  exactse,"  both  from  the 
most  ancient  codices,  Greek  and  Latin.  The  Propo- 
sals closed  with  the  last  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse  in 
Greek  and  Latin  as  a  specimen. 

Bentley's  hypothesis  was,  that  the  oldest  manu- 
scripts of  the  Greek  original  and  of  Jerome's  Vulgate 
resemble  each  other  so  closely  that,  by  means  of  this 
agreement,  he  could  restore  the  text  as  it  stood  in  the 
fourth  century,  so  that  there  should  not  be  a  difference 
of  twenty  words,  or  even  particles.  "  By  taking  two 
thousand  errors  out  of  the  Pope's  Vulgate  (the  Clemen- 
tine), and  as  many  out  of  the  Protestant  Pope  Stephen 
(ed.  of  1550),  I  can  set  out  an  edition  of  each  in  col- 
umns, without  using  any  book  under  nine   hundred 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  228. 


RICEARD  BENTLET  71 

years  old,  that  shall  so  exactly  agree,  word  for  word, 
and  order  for  order,  that  no  two  tallies  nor  two  inden- 
tures can  agree  better."  In  order  to  confirm  the  read- 
ings introduced  into  the  text,  he  proposed  to  make  use 
of  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  Gothic,  and  Ethiopia  Versions,  and 
of  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  within  the  first  five 
centuries,  and  to  exhibit  all  the  various  readings  within 
those  five  centuries. 

For  the  prosecution  of  this  design  it  was  necessary  Collections 
that  the  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  should  be  collated  f^ns^for^' 
as  carefully  as  those  of  the  Greek  Testament;  and  Bentley's 
much  work  both  in  collection  and  collation  was  done  ^°^  ' 
by  Bentley  himself,  and  by  his  colleague,  John  Walker, 
in  Paris,  by  Chevalier  in  Tours,  and  Casley  in  Oxford. 
Their    collations    are    preserved    in    the    Library   of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge.^    They  are  more  on  the 
Latin  Vulgate  than  on  the  original  Greek.     The  most 
valuable  of  the  collations,  that  of   B,  was  procured 
about  1720,  at  Bentley's  expense,  and  by  the  labour  of 
the  Abbate  Mico,  and  was  revised  by  Abbate  Eulotta 
in  1729. 

These  collations  are  all  that  remain  of  Bentley's  Importance 
enterprise,  for  the  work  itself  never  appeared.  Yet 
the  Proposals  mark  an  important  step  in  the  his- 
tory of  textual  criticism.  They  indicate  an  advance 
toward  discrimination  in  the  selection  and  use  of 
Greek  manuscripts,  and  a  frank  and  vigorous  protest 
against  the  tyranny  of  the  Textus  Eeceptus.  Bentley 
was  the  first  to  lay  down  the  great  principle  that  the 
whole  text  is  to  be  formed  on  evidence,  apart  from 
the  influence  of  any  edition.  He  declared  that  after 
the  Complutenses  and  Erasmus,  who  had  but  very 
ordinary  manuscripts,  the  New  Testament  became  the 
property  of  booksellers,  and  that  Stephen's  text  stood 
as  if  an  apostle  was  his  compositor.     He  described 

1  See  Catalogue  in  Scrivener's  Introduction,  II,  89  f. 


of  the  Pro- 
posals. 


72 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Bentiey's  Stephen  as  the  Protestant  Pope.  Of  the  text  of  the 
ItateV/  ^^^  Vulgate  he  asserted  that  Popes  Sixtus  and  Clement 
textual  were  incompetent  to  execute  its  revision,  since  they 

en  icism.  "vvere  mere  theologians,  without  experience  in  manu- 
scripts, using  inferior  Greek  copies,  and  mistaking 
later  copies  for  earlier.  He  perceived  the  division-line 
between  the  old  and  the  late  codices,  and  insisted  that 
the  ancient  manuscripts  are  the  witnesses  of  the  an- 
cient text.  He  was  even  prepared  to  dismiss  from  con- 
sideration the  testimony  of  the  whole  mass  of  modern 
copies. 

"The  New  Testament,"  wrote  Bentley,  "has  been 
under  a  hard  fate  since  the  invention  of  printing. 

"  After  the  Complutenses  and  Erasmus,  who  had  but 
very  ordinary  manuscripts,  it  became  the  property  of 

booksellers No  heathen  author  has  had  such 

ill  fortune.  Terence,  Ovid,  etc.,  for  the  first  century 
after  printing,  went  about  with  twenty  thousand  errors 
in  them.  But  when  learned  men  undertook  them,  and 
from  the  oldest  manuscripts  set  out  correct  editions, 
those  errors  fell  and  vanished.  But  if  they  had  kept 
to  the  first  published  text,  and  set  the  various  lec- 
tions only  in  the  margin,  those  classic  authors  would 
be  as  clogged  with  variations  as  Dr.  Mill's  Testa- 
ment is. 

"  Popes  Sixtus  and  Clement,  at  a  vast  expense,  had 
an  assembly  of  learned  divines  to  recense  and  adjust 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  then  enacted  their  new  edition 
authentic;  but  I  find,  though  I  have  not  discovered 
anything  done  dolo  malo,  they  were  quite  unequal  to 
the  affair.  They  were  mere  theologi,  and  had  no  ex- 
perience in  manuscripts,  nor  made  good  use  of  Greek 
copies,  and  followed  books  of  five  hundred  years  before 
those  of  double  age.  Nay,  I  believe  they  took  these 
new  ones  for  the  older  of  the  two ;  for  it  is  not  every- 
body knows  the  age  of  a  manuscript." 


RICHARD  BENTLEY  78 

Bentley's  proposals  were  comprised  in  eight  para-  Proposals  in 
graphs :  the  first  spoke  of  the  actual  condition  of  the 
printed  Greek  Testament  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and 
the  importance  of  the  service  of  revising  both,  on  the 
authority  of  manuscripts  of  more  than  a  thousand  years 
old.  The  second  related  to  the  view  which  Bentley 
took  of  certain  passages  in  St.  Jerome  "  where  he  de- 
clares, that  (without  making  a  new  version)  he  adjusted 
and  reformed  the  whole  Latin  Vulgate  to  the  best 
Greek  exemplars,  that  is  to  say,  to  those  of  the  famous 
Origen,"  and  also  of  the  passage  containing  Jerome's 
statement  that  the  order  even  of  the  words  is  im- 
portant in  translations  of  Holy  Scripture.  From  these 
passages  he  concluded  that  the  oldest  Greek  and  Latin 
copies  ought  to  agree  both  in  words  and  in  their  order, 
"  and  upon  making  the  essay  (he  says)  he  has  suc- 
ceeded in  his  conjecture  beyond  his  expectation  or 
even  his  hopes."  In  the  third  paragraph  he  states  his 
belief  that  the  mass  of  various  readings  may,  from  his 
collations,  be  so  reduced  in  number  as  to  leave  only  about 
two  hundred  places  in  which  the  true  text  of  a  passage 
can  be  a  matter  of  doubt.  In  the  fourth,  he  says  that 
he  uses  as  subsidiary,  in  order  to  confirm  the  readings 
which  he  adopts,  "  all  the  old  versions,  Syriac,  Coptic, 
Gothic,  and  Ethiopic,  and  all  the  Fathers,  Greeks 
and  Latins,  within  the  first  five  centuries  " ;  and  he 
gives  in  his  notes  all  the  various  readings  (now  known) 
within  the  said  five  centuries.  So  that  the  reader  has 
under  one  view  what  the  first  ages  of  the  church  knew 
of  the  text ;  and  what  has  crept  into  any  copies  since 
is  of  no  value  or  authority.  In  the  fifth  paragraph, 
Bentley  disclaims  the  use  of  conjecture  altogether  in 
the  text  itself  of  the  sacred  volume ;  the  notes  are  to 
contain  all  the  evidence  on  which  every  word  rests; 
and  also  the  common  readings  of  Stephen's  Greek  and 
Clement  the  Vlllth's  Latin  are  to  be  plainly  exhibited. 


74 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Conyers 
Middleton 
attacks  the 
Proposals. 


Bentley's 
faith  in  his 
hypothesis 
weakened. 


In  the  sixth,  the  reader  is  told  that  any  conjectures  of 
the  editor  will  be  given,  as  such,  in  the  Prolegomena, 
in  which,  also,  there  was  promised  a  full  account  of 
the  manuscripts,  etc.,  used.  The  seventh  paragraph 
informed  the  reader  of  the  terms  of  subscription,  three 
guineas  for  smaller  paper,  five  for  large.  The  conclud- 
ing paragraph  promised  that  the  edition  should  be  put 
to  press  as  soon  as  a  sufiicient  sum  was  subscribed. 

Bentley's  proposals  were  attacked  in  an  anonymous 
pamphlet  by  Conyers  Middleton,  which  was  severely 
replied  to  in  another  anonymous  pamphlet,  commonly 
attributed  to  Bentley.  Middleton  rejoined  in  a  longer 
and  abler  pamphlet ;  but  he  was  no  match  for  Bentley, 
and  his  reply  did  not  bear  upon  the  critical  points  at 
issue.  An  unhappy  consequence  of  the  controversy 
was  the  impression  that  criticism  could  not  be  safely 
applied  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  and  that 
it  is  better  to  retain  traditional  readings  without 
evidence  than  to  revise  them  according  to  competent 
testimony. 

Had  Bentley's  edition  appeared,  it  would  have  pre- 
sented an  invaluable  body  of  critical  materials.  It 
would  have  been  an  important  contribution  to  the 
establishment  of  a  settled  text,  and  a  severe  blow  at 
the  traditional  Textus  Receptus.  His  text  would  have 
been  that  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  which  resemble  the 
oldest  copies  of  the  Vulgate ;  but  this  would  have  been 
only  the  text  current  in  the  West,  and  not  that  of  the 
whole  body  of  Christian  readers  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries. 

But  this  hypothesis  of  substantial  identity  between 
the  oldest  Greek  and  Latin  copies  was  more  favoured 
by  A  than  by  any  other  really  ancient  document. 
The  impossibility  of  settling  the  text  by  the  applica- 
tion of  this  principle  appears  to  have  grown  upon  him, 
especially  after  his   acquaintance  with  the  Vatican 


BENTLET,  MIDDLETON  AND  MACE         75 

readings ;    and  it  is   to   this   that   some  impute  the 
abandoumeut  of  his  project.^ 

Mace.  —  The  revolt  against  the  Textus  Receptus  was  Mace  antici- 
continued  by  William  (or  Daniel)  Mace,  a  Fellow  of  Pfgfof'''^" 
Greshara  College,  London,  who  published  anonymously,   modem 
in  1729,  a  Greek  and  English  Diglott,  with  the  title  '^"^'''^• 
The  New  Testament  in    Greek  and  English,  contain- 
ing the  Original  Text  corrected  from  the  Authority  of 
the  Most   Authentic   Manuscripts,   etc.      His  emenda- 
tions  agree   remarkably  with  readings  approved  by 
critics  of  this  day.     Reuss  speaks  of  him  as  one  whom 
his   contemporaries   unjustly  persecuted,    and   whom 
more  recent  critics   much   more   unjustly  consign  to 
oblivion.^ 

1  See  Tregelles,  Printed  Text^  57-68.  Tischendorf,  Prole- 
gomena, 231.  Wordsworth,  White,  and  Sanday,  Old  Latin  Bib- 
lical Texts,  I,  XXV.  J.  H,  Monk,  Life  of  JRichard  Bentley, 
D.D.  The  Works  of  Richard  Bentley,  D.D.,  collected  and 
edited  by  A.  Dyce,  London,  1836.  Bentlei  et  Doctorum  Viro- 
rum  ad  eum  Epistolce,  2d  ed,,  Leipzig,  1825. 

2 As  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  210,  "The  anonymous 
text  and  version  of  William  Mace,  said  to  have  been  a  Presby- 
terian minister,  are  alike  unworthy  of  serious  notice,  and  have 
long  since  been  forgotten."  These  words,  in  which  Dr.  Scrive- 
ner apparently  echoes  Tregelles  {Printed  Text,  65),  are  in 
marked  contrast  with  the  remarks  of  Dr.  C.  R.  Gregory,  in  his 
Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf 's  8th  ed.,  240.  Nestle  also  alludes 
to  him  as  perhaps  the  boldest  deviator  from  the  Received  Text 
{Einfuhrung,    15). 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE      FIRST     PERIOD     (1516-1770).       MOVEMENT 
TOWARD   THE   GENEALOGICAL   METHOD 


Recognition 
of  the  rela- 
tionship of 
documents. 


Statement 
of  certain 
features  of 
later  criti- 
cism neces- 
sary for 
understand- 
ing the 
remaining 
history. 


Textual  Criticism  now  began  to  feel  its  way  toward 
a  new  method,  through  the  growing  recognition  of  the 
relationship  of  documents,  foreshadowed  by  Mill  and 
Bentley.  This  led  up  to  the  classitication  of  all  docu- 
ments by  families  —  a  principle  which  was  first  clearly 
announced  by  Bengel  in  1734.  This  principle  shapes 
the  whole  subsequent  development  of  New  Testament 
textual  criticism.  In  order  that  the  remaining  stages 
of  the  history  may  be  understood,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  anticipate  certain  features  of  later  criticism. 

It  may  be  well  to  remind  the  reader  once  more  that 
the  problem  of  Textual  Criticism  is  to  extract  from  all 
attainable  sources,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  original 
text  of  the  author ;  and  that  this  process  involves  the 
comparison  of  thousands  of  various  readings,  and  the 
selection  of  those  which  represent  the  purest  text. 

No  sound  decision  as  to  the  comparative  value  of 
readings  can  be  reached  by  a  merely  numerical  process, 
that  is  to  say,  by  giving  preference  to  that  reading 
which  is  contained  in  the  majority  of  manuscripts  ;  for 
it  cannot  be  asserted  that  a  reading  has  the  majority 
of  witnesses,  until  all  known  manuscripts  have  been 
collated,  and  all  unknown  manuscripts  have  been  dis- 
covered and  collated.  There  may  be  enough  manu- 
scripts unknown  and  uncollated  to  turn  the  scale  in 
favour  of  a  rejected  reading.  Moreover,  this  process 
76 


QUALITY,  NOT  NUMBER,   OF  MANUSCRIPTS     77 

takes  account  only  of  the  number,  and  not  at  all  of  the  No  correct 
quality,  of  the  witnesses.     The  united  value  of  the  readings  by 
readings  of  ten  manuscripts  may  not  equal  that  of  four  a  merely 
others.     The  ten  may  all  be  of  late  date  and  inferior  process!^ 
quality,  while  the  four  may  include  two  or  three  of  the 
earliest  and  best. 

Thus  the  clause  dAAa  pvaai  tjfxas  airo  Tov  irovqpov,  "  de- 
liver us  from  the  evil  one,"  which  is  attested  by  every 
known  authority  in  Matt.  6  :  13,  is  omitted  by  the 
highest  textual  authorities  from  Luke  xi.  4.  Yet  the 
evidence  in  its  favour,  numerically  considered,  is  very 
strong.  It  is  found  in  ACDEFGH KMRSUVrAATT, 
in  a  number  of  cursives,  in  the  Old  Latin  bcfffilq, 
and  in  the  Bohairic,  Peshitto,  Curetonian  and  Harclean 
Syriac,  and  the  Ethiopic  Versions.  But  it  is  wanting 
in  S  and  B.  B  does  not  contain  it  at  all,  and  t<  only  by 
a  hand  three  centuries  later  than  the  first.  Again,  in 
Mark  7 :  19,  eight  later  uncials  and  hundreds  of  cursives 
have  the  Keceived  reading  KaOapt^ov  -n-avTa  to.  jSpwfMaTa, 
"  purging  all  meats,"  the  neuter  participle  "  purging  " 
agreeing  with  the  clause  "goeth  forth  into  the 
draught."  On  the  other  hand,  i^ABEFGHLSXA 
and  three  Fathers  have  KaOapC^wv,  the  masculine  partici- 
ple, referring  to  Christ,  "This  he  said,  making  all 
meats  clean."  The  numerical  superiority  is  with  the 
former  reading;  the  lueight,  both  of  authority  and 
sense,  is  with  the  latter. 

Neither  can  a  sound  conclusion  be  reached  on  the  Nor  on  the 
basis  of  the  comparative  age  of  manuscripts.     The  comparative 
important  point  is  the  age  of  the  text  contained  in   ageofmanu- 
the  manuscript  relatively  to  the  autograph.     A  manu-  ^^"^  ^' 
script  of  the  fourth  century  may  have  been  copied  from 
one  only  a  little  older  than  itself,  and  that  in  turn 
from  one  only  a  little  older ;  while  a  manuscript  of  the 
eleventh  century  may  have  been  copied  from  one  of 
the  third  century,  and  that  from  the  autograph. 


78 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 


An  ancient 
text  not 
necessarily 
a  pure  text. 


Intrinsic 
and  Tran- 
scriptional 
evidence. 


Caution  in 
the  use  of 
intrinsic 
probability. 


But  an  ancient  text  is  not  necessarily  a  pure  text. 
Some  of  the  worst  textual  corruptions  had  entered  in 
the  second  century.  Therefore  the  readings  must  be 
scrutinised  in  order  to  discover  what  evidence  they 
afford  of  their  own  purity.  To  this  process  two  kinds 
of  evidence  are  applied,  Intrinsic  and  Transcriptional. 
By  Intrinsic  evidence  is  meant  that  which  is  furnished 
by  knowledge  of  the  writer's  style  and  habits  of 
thought ;  by  grammatical  considerations,  the  nature  of 
the  context,  etc.  This  kind  of  evidence  goes  to  show 
which  of  several  readings  of  a  passage  is  most  likely 
to  have  proceeded  from  the  writer's  own  hand.  By 
Transcriptional  evidence  is  meant  that  which  is  de- 
rived from  knowledge  of  the  habits  of  scribes,  and  of 
the  accidents  to  which  they  are  liable  in  the  process 
of  transcription.  This  class  of  evidence  goes  to  show 
which  one  of  several  readings  the  copyist  is  likely  to 
have  had  before  him,  and  which  one  is  most  likely  to 
have  been  changed  into  the  several  various  readings. 

In  the  matter  of  intrinsic  probability  it  is  easy  to 
make  a  mistake.  Conclusions  founded  upon  it  are  to 
be  accepted  with  great  caution,  because  of  the  ten- 
dency of  the  critic  to  form  his  conclusion  from  his 
own  point  of  view  or  his  own  environment,  rather 
than  from  those  of  the  author.  Thus,  intrinsic  proba- 
bility seems  to  point  to  the  omission  of  the  words, 
"  Make  me  as  one  of  thy  hired  servants,"  from  Luke 
15 :  21,  repeating  the  words  of  ver.  19.  From  our 
point  of  view  it  seems  unlikely  that  the  restored  son, 
with  the  full  assurance  of  pardon,  would  repeat  the 
request  which  he  had  proposed  to  himself  before  his 
experience  of  the  riches  of  fatherly  love  and  forgive- 
ness. A  large  number  of  manuscripts  and  most  of  the 
versions  omit  the  words.  Westcott  and  Hort  bracket 
them  ;  Tischendorf  rejects  them.  Yet  we  cannot  rest 
solely  on  intrinsic  probability  from  our  point  of  view. 


INTRINSIC  EVIDENCE 


79 


The  words  are  attested  by  X  B  D  U  X.  Similarly,  a 
critic  may  light  on  an  ungrammatical  reading  and  be 
tempted  to  emend  on  the  ground  of  the  intrinsic  im- 
probability of  the  writer's  grammatical  blunder;  yet  a 
larger  acquaintance  with  his  habits  of  composition 
may  greatly  diminish  that  improbability.  So  of  awk- 
wardness of  style,  or  inconsistency.  Because  Phil. 
1 :  22  presents  a  very  awkward  construction,  because 
Rom.  5 :  12  introduces  us  to  a  puzzling  parenthetical 
passage,  it  cannot  be  certainly  inferred  that  Paul  orig- 
inally wrote  these  in  a  less  awkward  form,  and  that 
corruptions  have  crept  into  the  text,  for  Paul's  writ- 
ings are  full  of  such  instances. 

There  are  rare  instances  in  which  intrinsic  proba- 
bility may  carry  the  day  even  against  strong  manu- 
script evidence.  In  Mark  6  :  22,  b^  B  D  L  A  give 
elcrcXOovar]'?    rrjq    Ovyarpo^    avrov    'HpwSiaSos    kol    6p)(7]aa- 

ix€vrj<;,  "His  daughter  Herodias  having  entered  in 
and  danced."  This  reading  appears  in  the  text  of 
Westcott  and  Hort.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  such  manu- 
script evidence,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  Mark  could  not 
have  intended  this.  The  statement  directly  contra- 
dicts Josephus,  who  says  that  the  name  of  the  damsel 
was  Salome,  and  that  she  was  the  daughter  of  Herod 
Philip,  by  Herodias,  who  did  not  leave  her  husband 
until  after  Salome's  birth.  It  is,  moreover,  most  im- 
probable that  even  Herod  the  Tetrarch  would  have 
allowed  his  own  daughter  thus  to  degrade  herself. 

Conclusions  as  to  transcriptional  probability  are 
somewhat  more  reliable  because  of  our  knowledge  of 
the  habits  of  scribes.  We  can  detect  with  some  accu- 
racy motives  for  intentional  alteration  and  reasons  for 
unintentional  errors.  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  a 
scribe  might  think  himself  in  duty  bound  to  play  the 
part  of  a  corrector,  and  conform  an  unfamiliar  in- 
flexion or  quotation  or  construction  to  forms  familiar 


Intrinsic 

probability 

occasionally 

prevails 

against 

manuscript 

evidence. 


80  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

to  himself.  He  might  think  it  incumbent  on  him 
to  change  TjkOaTe,  rjXOav,  into  rjXOcTe,  rj\6ov;  or  to  alter 
Xrnixpofxai  and  7rpoar(ii7ro\rjix\J/La  into  X-^if/ofJiaL  and  irpoa-o)- 
TToXtjij/ta  for  the  sake  of  euphony;  or  to  write  rnxepas 
instead  of  rjfiepai  in  Matt.  15 :  32,  on  the  ground  that 
correct  grammar  required  the  accusative  of  duration. 
Or,  again,  he  might  substitute  Kpd^av  and  a7rapd$av  for 
Kpa^as  and  o-7rapa|as  in  Matt.  9  :  26,  in  order  to  make 
the  participles  agree  with  the  neuter  Trvev/xa.  The  cor- 
rect reading  in  Mark  1:2  is  iv  t<^  'Ho-aca  tw  Trpocft-JTr), 
"in  Isaiah  the  prophet;"  but  it  is  apparent  that 
some  scribe  found  it  difficult  or  impossible  to  account 
for  the  fact  that  the  quotation  from  Isa.  40  :  3,  "  The 
voice  of  one  crying,"  etc.,  is  preceded  by  a  quotation 
from  Mai.  3:1,  "  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,"  etc. ; 
and  accordingly  substituted  iv  rots  rrpocfiyTaLs,  "in  the 
prophets." 

Intentional  alterations  may  also  have  proceeded 
from  the  desire  to  amplify.  It  is  well  known  that 
copyists  were  in  the  habit  of  making  a  quoted  passage, 
for  instance,  as  full  as  possible,  through  fear  of  losing 
something  which  the  writer  had  said.  For  example. 
Matt.  15  :  8.  The  Eeceived  Text  is  iyyt^a  fxoL  6  Aaos 
ouros  TiS  (XTOfxaTL  avTo}v,  koI  rots  ^(ctAecrt'  fxe  ri/xa,  "  This 
people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with  their  mouth  and 
honoureth  me  with  their  lips."  The  best  modern  texts 
read  6  Aaos  ovro'i  tol^  ^(etAeo-t  fji€  Ti/xa,  '^This  people  hon- 
oureth me  with  their  lips."  At  least  fourteen  uncials 
support  the  longer  reading,  yet  the  wei.t^ht  of  authority 
is  in  favour  of  the  shorter :  i<  B  D  L  T,  Vulgate,  Cure- 
tonian,  Armenian,  ^thiopic,  Origen,  Chrysostom.  The 
Eeceived  Text  is  most  probably  an  amplification  of 
the  shorter  and  genuine  reading. 
Insertions  of  It  is  also  well  known  how  habitually  copyists  in- 
one^G(5pe/  serted  in  one  Gospel  the  readings  of  another,  so  as  to 
in  another,     bring  them  into  agreement.     There  is  not  a  manu- 


TRANSCRIPTIONAL   EVIDENCE  81 

script  or  a  version  that  has  not  suffered  more  or  less 
in  this  manner. 

As  for  unintentional  errors,  there  are  many  ways  in  Causes  of 
which  they  have  slipped  into  the  text;  as  by  con-  JioJJ^af"" 
founding  letters   of   similar  appearance,  omitting  an  errors, 
entire  verse  when  two  successive  lines  or  sentences 
end  with  the  same  word,  and  the  scribe  has  mistaken 
the  second  ending  for  that  which  he  has  just  writ- 
ten ;  misreadings  of  abbreviations ;  adopting  marginal 
glosses  into  the  text,  etc.    See  Chapter  II.    Such  know- 
ledge of  the  habits  of  scribes  may  help  us  greatly  in 
determining  what  reading  the  copyist  is  likely  to  have 
had  before  him,  and  which  of  several  readings  is  most 
likely  to  have  been  changed  into  another  or  several 
others.     In  any  case  in  which  intrinsic  and  transcrip-  Concur- 
tional  probability  concur,  the  concurrence  makes  in  5®P^®  ^^  ^?- 

triUSlC  3.D(1 

favour  of  the  reading.  In  Phil.  1 :  7,  for  example,  transcrip- 
ts B  D'^'=  E  K  L  P  repeat  iv.  In  A  D  F  G  the  second  iv,  abmty^''''^" 
before  rrj  aTroXoyia,  is  omitted.  Now  intrinsic  proba- 
bility is  in  favour  of  the  repetition  of  the  eV,  because 
there  are  two  distinct  specifications,  "in  my  bonds" 
and  "  in  the  defence  and  confirmation  of  the  Gospel." 
But  the  copyist  omitted  h  before  t-q  d-n-oXoyta,  because 
he  did  not  find  it  before  (ScfSatwarcL,  not  observing  that 
it  was  not  needed  before  that  word  because  ^c/SaMcru 
was  included  with  rrj  drroXoyia  under  one  article.  Thus 
transcriptional  probability  and  intrinsic  probability 
concur  in  favour  of  the  repetition  of  h. 

Again,  take  the  manifest  solecism  in  Phil.  2 : 2, 
TL<i  a-rrXdyxva,  which  is  Overwhelmingly  supported  by 
all  the  principal  uncials  and  by  nearly  all  the  versions, 
while  the  proper,  grammatical  reading,  nva,  appears  in 
only  a  few  minuscules  and  Fathers.  Intrinsic  proba- 
bility is  entirely  against  the  attested  reading,  and  tran- 
scriptional probability  clearly  points  to  a  copyist's 
hasty  and  careless  repetition  of  ns  from  the  preceding 


82 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


clause.  Another  instance  may  be  found  in  Phil.  2  :  15, 
where  the  correct  reading  is  a/xw/xa,  according  to  i<  A  B  C. 
But  D  F  G  K  LP  read  d/xw/xTyra.  Paul  is  citing  Deut. 
32  :  5.  *AixiOfx,-qTo<:  does  not  occur  in  the  LXX,  but 
fi(i)fir)Td  "  blameworthy "  appears  in  that  passage. 
Hence,  while  it  is  intrinsically  probable  that  Paul  wrote 
oifXiOfjLa,  it  is  transcriptionally  probable  that  the  scribe, 
finding  fxwjxrjTa  in  the  LXX,  changed  dfitDfia  into  dixwfxrjTo. 
to  correspond. 

But,  valuable  as  this  internal  evidence  for  separate 
readings  is,  it  cannot  be  trusted  by  itself.  Scrutiny  of 
separate  readings  must  be  supplemented  by  the  study 
of  the  several  documents  as  wholes.  It  is  fair  to  assume 
that  the  credibility  of  a  reading,  however  plausible  on 
grounds  of  intrinsic  and  transcriptional  evidence,  may 
be  affected  by  the  general  credibility  of  the  document 
or  class  of  documents  in  which  it  appears.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  a  reading  approved  by  internal  evidence 
should  be  found  in  a  document  or  a  class  of  documents 
which  show  signs  of  corruption.  That  fact  would  not 
conclusively  discredit  the  reading,  but  it  would  lay  it 
open  to  suspicion.  Let  it  be  constantly  borne  in  mind 
that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrinal  or  other 
qualities  and  bearings  of  the  text.  The  sole  object  is 
to  reach  the  text  itself  in  its  primitive  form.  It  is  a 
very  simple  and  generally  accepted  principle  that  our 
estimate  of  the  particular  details  of  a  book  is  to  be 
affected  and  modified  by  the  general  character  of  the 
book.  Any  biography  of  Luther,  for  instance,  may 
contain  truthful  details ;  yet  if  a  question  should  arise 
as  to  the  correctness  of  any  detail,  our  judgment 
would  be  inevitably  and  justly  modified  by  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  biography  at  large.  We  could  not  help 
noting  that  D'Aubigne  deals  in  wordy  panegyric ;  that 
Audin  betrays  strong  partisan  tendencies ;  that  a  dis- 
tinct theological  bias  pervades  the  treatment  of  Luther 


AOE  OF  TEXT  83 

by  Newman,  Bossuet,  and  Mozley,  and  that  all  these   Knowledge 

are  in  strong  contrast  with  the   sober,  dispassionate  ments 

accuracy  of  Kostlin.     Thus  we  reach  the  accepted  prin-  naust  pre- 

C6de  iuufif- 
ciple  of  textual  criticism,  that  knowledge  of  documents  ment  on 

must  precede  formal  judgment  on  readings.  readings. 

This  principle  requires  the  student  to  consider  the 
age  of  documents  and  the  age  of  the  texts  which  they 
contain  —  two  quite  distinct  questions,  since  a  late 
document  may  have  been  copied  from  an  early  text. 
It  is  unsafe  to  estimate  the  weight  of  a  document  by 
its  age  alone.  Its  real  weight  depends  upon  the  age  of  Weight  of 
its  text.  This  must  first  be  settled  by  the  careful  and  depeSiTon 
minute  collation  of  versions  and  citations,  noting  all  age  of  text. 
readings  which  prove  themselves  to  be  ancient.  Then 
each  manuscript  is  to  be  compared  with  this  list  of 
readings,  and  any  manuscript  found  to  contain  a  con- 
siderable proportion  of  these  or  of  older  readings 
may  be  noted  as  containing  an  ancient  text.  If  we 
find  a  number  of  manuscripts  exhibiting  a  text  similar 
to  this,  the  collected  readings  of  all  these  will  repre- 
sent, generally,  the  character  of  the  earlier  text. 

This  is  a  great  point  gained,  yet  it  still  remains  to  An  early- 
show  that  this  early  text  is  a  pure  text.     The  purity  of  necessarily 
a  text  does  not  follow  from  its  early  date.     We  know,   a  pure  text, 
for  example,  that  extensive  corruptions  had  found  their 
way  into  the  text  of  the  second  century.     Accordingly, 
since  our  earliest  witnesses  differ  at  certain  points,  we 
are  compelled  to  push  our  examination  farther,  and  to 
test  the  purity  of  the  text.     Here  we  are  thrown  back 
again  upon  internal  evidence,  and  the  only  kinds  of 
evidence  we  have  are  those  already  applied  to  separate 
readings,   namely,  intrinsic    and   transcriptional    evi- 
dence ;  only  we  now  apply  these  two  kinds  of  evidence 
to  whole  documents,  instead  of  to  individual  readings 
merely.     By  comparing  the  readings  of  two  documents 
in  all  their  variations,  we  obtain  the  materials  for 


84 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Intrinsic 
and  tran- 
scriptional 
evidence  ap- 
plied to 
documents. 


Not  reason- 
ing in  a 
circle. 


ascertaining  the  leading  merits  and  defects  of  each. 
There  are  usually  enough  readings  which  strong  intrin- 
sic and  strong  transcriptional  probability  combine  iu 
attesting,  to  enable  us  to  reach  a  sound  judgment. 
Suppose  that  we  are  required  to  pronounce  upon  the 
comparative  textual  purity  of  two  documents,  repre- 
sented by  T  and  X.  We  shall  first  note  all  their  points 
of  difference.  Next,  we  shall  proceed  to  discover 
which  reading,  in  each  case,  approves  itself  as  origi- 
nal according  to  the  tests  of  transcriptional  and  in- 
trinsic evidence.  We  thus  obtain  two  lists  of  readings, 
and  can  easily  determine  what  proportion  of  original 
readings  is  contained  in  each.  If  T  shall  be  found  to 
contain  the  larger  proportion  of  preferred  readings,  and 
X  to  contain  habitually  the  rejected  rival  readings,  we 
are  entitled  to  conclude  that  the  text  of  T  has  been 
transmitted  in  comparative  purity,  and  that  the  text 
of  X  has  suffered  comparatively  large  corruption.  Not 
only  so,  but  the  purer  character  of  T  thus  shown  may 
affect  our  decision  in  the  case  of  certain  readings  pre- 
ferred in  X,  and  lead  us  to  revise  and  possibly  to 
change  it.  The  same  process  would  be  pursued  if  we 
had  a  dozen  or  fifty  or  two  hundred  documents  in- 
stead of  two. 

It  might  be  objected,  indeed,  that  we  employ  the 
evidence  of  separate  readings  in  order  to  reach  our 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  text  of  a  document  as  a 
whole,  and  that  therefore,  when  it  is  said  that  the 
relative  textual  value  of  each  document  must  be  fixed 
before  we  are  in  a  position  to  decide  upon  separate 
readings,  we  are  reasoning  in  a  circle.  But  the  pro- 
cess by  which  Ave  determined  the  value  of  the  docu- 
ment as  a  whole  is  tentative.  Our  general  estimate 
may  be  sound,  although  we  may  not  be  able  to  trust 
absolutely  all  our  impressions  as  to  the  probabilities 
of  reading.     The  general  conclusion  as  to  the  docu- 


TBEGELLES'S  CLASSIFICATION  85 

ment  as  a  whole  does  not  imply  that  our  estimate  of 
every  separate  reading  has  been  correct.  In  studying 
the  intrinsic  and  transcriptional  evidence  of  readings 
"  we  endeavour  to  deal  with  each  variation  separately, 
and  to  decide  between  its  variants  immediately,  on 
the  evidence  presented  by  the  variation  itself  in  its 
context,  aided  only  by  general  considerations.  In  the 
other  case  (estimating  the  comparative  textual  value 
of  entire  documents)  we  begin  with  virtually  perform- 
ing the  same  operation,  but  only  tentatively,  with  a 
view  to  collect  materials,  not  final  results ;  on  some 
variations  we  can  without  rashness  predict  at  this 
stage  our  ultimate  conclusions ;  on  many  more  we  can 
estimate  various  degrees  of  probability ;  on  many 
more  again,  if  we  are  prudent,  we  shall  be  content  to 
remain  for  the  present  in  entire  suspense.  Next,  we 
pass  from  investigating  the  readings  to  investigating 
the  documents  by  means  of  what  we  have  learned 
respecting  the  readings.  Thirdly,  we  return  to  the 
readings,  and  go  once  more  over  the  same  ground 
as  at  first,  but  this  time  making  a  tentative  choice 
of  readings  simply  in  accordance  with  documentary 
authority."  ^ 

The  results  of  this  comparative  criticism  applied  Tregelles's 
to  New  Testament  documents  may  be  illustrated  by  tio?of  docu- 
Tregelles's  classification.     (1)    Uncials   of   the   most  ments. 
ancient  class,  those  earlier  than  the  seventh  century, 
^5  B  D  Z.      (2)    Good  later  uncials  which  frequently 
accord  with  these,    L  X  A.      (3)    Important  cursives, 
generally  supporting  the  most  ancient  documents,  1, 
22,  33,  39,  209.     (4)  Later  uncials.^ 

Yet  the  estimate  of  the  character  of  documents  by  individual 
this  process  is  not  exhaustive.  The  problem  would  documents 
be  simpler  if  each  document  were  homogeneous;  but  geneous. 

1  Hort,  Introduction,  §  40. 

^Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  New  Testament^  132. 


86 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 


Criticism 
investigates 
the  rationale 
of  the  com- 
bination of 
documents. 


Genealogy 
of  docu- 
ments. 


such  is  not  the  case.  A  document  may  be  sound  in 
one  part  and  unsound  in  another.  A  manuscript 
containing  several  books  may  have  been  transcribed 
from  different  copies  not  equally  good ;  or  the  text  of 
a  document  may  have  been  compounded  of  two  or 
more  texts  of  different  descent,  so  that  the  document 
has  a  divided  individuality.  In  such  cases  a  body  of 
readings  common  to  a  group  of  manuscripts  represents 
parts  of  a  manuscript  which,  for  these  parts,  lay  at 
the  root  of  all  the  manuscripts  in  the  group.  This 
process  of  grouping  does  not  account  for  the  combina- 
tion of  the  manuscripts.  It  simply  evolves  the  fact  of 
combination.  Criticism,  then,  goes  one  step  farther, 
and  inquires  into  the  rationale  of  the  combination.  It 
proceeds  upon  the  principle  that  all  trustworthy 
restoration  of  corrupted  texts  is  founded  on  the  study 
of  their  history ;  that  is,  of  the  relations  of  descent 
or  affinity  which  connect  the  several  documents.  It 
classifies  documents  according  to  their  origin,  and 
arranges  the  several  groups  in  a  genealogical  tree, 
which  exhibits  their  common  or  proximate  origin. 
"The  practice  of  internal  evidence  of  groups  is  inde- 
pendent of  any  genealogical  considerations.  It  pro- 
ceeds, and  must  proceed,  in  utter  ignorance  of  all 
genealogies.  .  .  .  All  it  knows  is,  Here  are  docu- 
ments united.  All  it  asks  is.  Do  they  form  a  good 
or  a  bad  combination  ?  Yet,  behind  internal  evidence 
of  groups,  the  student  will  see  genealogies  clamouring 
for  recognition.  He  notes  the  peculiarities  of  the 
groupings,  —  some  groups  frequently  occurring,  others, 
apparently  equally  possible,  never  occurring  at  all.  He 
notes  the  verdicts  of  internal  evidence  of  groups, — 
some  groups  uniformly  condemned,  others,  apparently 
just  like  them,  almost  as  uniformly  commended.  .  .  . 
The  student  would  be  something  other  than  human  if 
he  did  not  wish  to  know  the  cause  of  all  this.     And 


GENEALOGY  OF  MANUSCRIPTS  Si 

the  hope  lies  close  that  all  may  be  explained,  and  a 
new  and  powerful  engine  of  criticism  be  put  into  our 
hands  by  the  investigation  of  the  genealogical  affilia- 
tions of  the  manuscripts,  which  are  suggested  by  these 
facts.  The  results  of  internal  evidence  of  groups 
suggest  not  only  the  study  of  genealogies,  but  also 
certain  genealogical  facts  on  which  that  study  may 
be  begun.  Every  one  must  suspect  that  manuscripts 
that  are  frequently  in  company  are  close  of  kin. 
Every  one  must  suspect  that  the  groups  which  support 
little  else  but  corruptions  are  composed  of  the  remain- 
ing representatives  of  a  corrupt  stock.  Everybody 
must  perceive  that  if  such  hints  are  capable  of  being 
followed  out,  and  the  New  Testament  documents 
arranged  in  accordance  with  their  affiliations,  we  shall 
have  a  means  of  reaching  the  true  text  which  will 
promise  more  than  all  other  methods  combined."  ^ 

Bengal.  —  The  principle  of  classifying  manuscripts 
by  families  was  first  definitely  propounded  by  John 
Albrecht  Bengel,  Superintendent  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church  of  Wiirtemburg,  and  widely  known 
to  ISTew  Testament  students  by  his  Grnomon  Novi 
Testamenti. 

In  1725  Bengel  attached  to  an  edition  of  Chrysos-  Bengel's 
tom's  De  Sacerdotio  his  Prodromus  Novi  Testamenti  Testament. 
Grceci  recte  cauteque  adomandi,  in  which  he  fore- 
shadowed the  characteristics  of  his  edition  of  the 
New  Testament,  which  appeared  in  1734.  The  title 
of  his  New  Testament  set  forth  that  the  text  was  to 
exhibit  the  "  marrow  "  of  approved  editions,  the  mar- 
gin a  selection  of  parallel  passages  and  various  read- 
ings, distributed  into  their  classes,  and  the  critical 
apparatus  the  compendium,  supplement,  and  fruit  of 
sacred  criticism,  especially  Mill's.     The  text  was  in 

1  Professor  B.  B.  Warfield,  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament. 


88  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

two  columns,  and  the  lower  margin  exhibited  various 
readings  in  five  classes:  '^genuine,  better  than  the 
readings  in  the  text,  equal  to  the  readings  in  the  text, 
inferior,  not  to  be  approved."  The  Apparatus  Criti- 
cus,  forming  the  second  part  of  the  work,  contained 
an  elaborate  dissertation  on  the  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament  Text.  A  small  edition  appeared  the  same 
year  at  Stuttgart,  without  the  critical  apparatus.  He 
collated  sixteen  manuscripts,  but  not  thoroughly.  He 
did  not  propose  to  give  all  the  readings  of  these  manu- 
scripts, but  only  the  more  important.  He  stated  the 
evidence  for  and  against  each  reading. 

Bengel  clearly  perceived  that  no  reliance  was  to  be 
placed  on  evidence  drawn  from  the  mere  numerical 
majority  of  readings  apart  from  their  origin  and  char- 
acter ;  and  that,  therefore,  witnesses  were  to  be  weighed 
and  not  counted.  He  was  the  first  to  recognise  clearly 
the  importance  of  the  principle  of  transcriptional  proba- 
bility, viz.  that  it  was  more  probable  that  a  copyist 
would  try  to  explain  an  obscure  passage,  or  to  make  a 
hard  construction  easier,  than  that  he  would  make 
difficult  what  was  already  easy.  Hence  his  familiar 
The  difficult  canon,  "  The  difficult  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  easy 
be^^referred  ^'^ading  "  ("  Proclivi  scriptioni  praestat  ardua  ").  The 
to  the  easy  text,  arranged  in  paragraphs,  exhibits  an  intentional 
departure  from  the  Eeceptus,  marked  nevertheless  by 
extreme  caution,  since  he  refused  to  admit,  except  in 
the  Apocalypse,  any  reading  which  had  not  appeared 
in  one  or  more  preceding  editions. 

Bengel's  chief  title  to  notice  as  a  textualist  lies,  as 
already  intimated,  in  his  fuller  recognition  and  appli- 
cation of  the  principle  of  families  of  texts ;  all  extant 
witnesses  being  thrown  into  companies,  families,  tribes, 
and  nations.^ 

1  His  own  statement  of  his  principle  may  be  seen  at  length 
in  Scrivener's  Introduction,  II,  212,  note. 


one 


J.  A.  BEN  GEL 


89 


He  divided  all  extant  documents,  broadly,  into  an-  Bengei's 
cient  and  modern,  under  the  names  African  and  Asi-  manu-^^  ^^ 
atic.  The  Asiatic  proceeded  mostly  from  Constantinople  scripts, 
and  its  neighbourhood,  and  were  inferior  to  the  African, 
which  were  fewer,  more  ancient,  and  more  valuable. 
The  African  he  subdivided  into  two  tribes,  represented 
respectively  by  A,  the  only  great  uncial  much  known 
in  his  day,  and  the  Old  Latin  Version.     He  held  that 
no  Asiatic  reading  was  likely  to  be  genuine  unless 
supported  by  some  African  document.     He  did  not 
thoroughly  carry  out  his  theory,  partly  through  fear 
of  exposing  the  truth  to  ridicule  ("  ne  risuum  periculo 
exponatur  Veritas  ").^ 

But  one  edition  of  Bengei's  New  Testament  was 
issued.  His  text,  however,  was  frequently  reprinted, 
and  was  the  standard  of  the  revision  of  the  Authorised 
Danish  Version,  made  in  1745  by  the  authority  of  the 
King  of  Denmark.  Up  to  the  time  of  his  death,  in 
1752,  he  continued  to  enlarge  and  correct  his  critical 
apparatus,  the  enlarged  edition  of  which  was  pub- 
lished, in  1763,  under  the  care  of  Philip  David 
Burk.     He  was  particular  as  to  punctuation,  and  his 

1  The  list  of  his  codices  is  as  follows :  — 


Aug.  1  :  Evv  83 

Dionysianus   (ex  Johanna  Ga- 

Aug.  2  :  Evv  84 

gneio)  Act  40  ? 

Aug.  3  :  Evv  85 

Gehl :  Evv  89 

Aug.  4  :  Evrin  24 

Hirs  :  Evv  97 

Aug.  6  :  Paul  54 

Mosc:  VEvv 

Aug.  6  :  Act  46  Paul  55 

Par.  10  :  (ex  Simonio) 

Aug.  7  :  Apoc.  80 

Uff.  1  :  MP"*"! 

Bas.  o  :  EEvv 

Uff.  vel  Uff.  2  :  Act  45  Paul  62 

Bas.  (i :  Evv  2 

Apoc.  16 

Bas.  7  :  Ew  1 

Uff.  3  :  Ew  101 

Byz:  Evv  86 

Cam  :  E w  (a  Joachimo  Came- 

^::^:}-^»>«» 

rario  conlati) 

90 


TEXTUAL   CRIiICISM 


J.  J.  Wet- 
stein. 
His  Prole- 
gomena. 


Assails  Ben- 
gel's  critical 
principles. 


division  into  paragraphs  was  frequently  adopted  in 
England.^ 

Wetstein  and  Semler.  —  In  1713  John  James  Wet- 
stein,  or  Wettstein,  Deacon  of  Basle,  prepared  a  dis- 
sertation on  Various  Readings  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  1716  he  met  Bentley  in  England,  and  at  his  in- 
stance went  to  Paris  in  order  to  collate  Codex  Ephraemi 
(C),  which  he  did  with  great  labour  and  patience.  In 
1718  he  published  a  specimen  of  various  readings, 
which  brought  upon  him  a  charge  of  Arian  and  So- 
cinian  heresy,  and  resulted  in  his  deposition  and  in 
his  expulsion  from  Basle  in  1730. 

In  the  same  year  his  Prolegomena  were  published 
anonymously  at  Amsterdam,  giving  an  outline  of  his 
proposed  edition  of  the  New  Testament  and  an  account 
of  his  critical  authorities.  The  edition  was  described 
as  "  acuratissima,"  derived  from  the  oldest  New  Testa- 
ment manuscripts,  and  treating  of  the  manuscripts  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  Greek  writers  who  have  made 
use  of  it,  the  ancient  versions,  the  former  editors,  and 
the  distinguished  interpreters ;  besides  "  animadver- 
siones  et  cautiones  "  for  the  examination  of  the  various 
readings  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  1735  he  wrote  the  preface  to  a  new  edition  of 
Gerhard  von  Maestricht's  Greek  Testament,  in  which 
he  referred  to  the  labours  of  Bengel,  for  whom  he  had  a 
great  contempt.  He  severely  reviewed  Bengel's  Tes- 
tament immediately  upon  its  appearance,  and  endeav- 
oured to  disparage  the  critical  principles   on   which 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  186,  241  f.  Scrivener,  Intro- 
duction, II,  210  ff.  Hort,  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testa- 
ment, Introduction,  180.  Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  68-73.  Life 
of  Bengel,  in  the  translation  of  the  Gnomon  by  C.  T.  Lewis  and 
M.  R.  Vincent,  Philadelphia,  1800.  J.  Chr.  Fr.  Burk  (Bengel's 
great-grandson),  Johann  Albrecht  BengeVs  Leben  und  [Virken, 
Stuttgart,  1831.  Article  "Bengel,"  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklo- 
pddie.    E.  Nestle,  Bengel  als  Gelehrter,  Tubingen,  1893. 


WETSTEINS'S  NEW  TESTAMENT  91 

Bengel  had  selected  liis  readings,  asserting  that  read- 
ings should  be  adopted  which  are  supported  by  the 
greatest  number  of  nianuscripts,  and  entirely  ignoring 
the  theory  of  families. 

In  1751-52  appeared  his  edition  of  the  New  Testa-  Wetstein's 
ment,  in  two  volumes  folio,  with  various  readings  of  Testament, 
manuscripts,  other  editions.  Versions,  and  Fathers ; 
also  with  a  commentary  illustrating  the  history  and 
force  of  words  from  ancient  writers,  —  Hebrew,  Greek, 
and  Latin.  The  influence  of  the  Textus  Receptus  was 
still  apparent,  although,  in  his  critical  remarks,  he  laid 
down  the  principle  that  the  prescription  of  the  com- 
mon text  should  have  no  authority  whatever.  His 
text  was  the  Elzevirian  with  a  few  changes.  The  read- 
ings which  he  preferred,  and  which  amounted  to  less 
than  five  hundred,  mostly  in  the  Apocalypse,  were 
placed  below  the  text.  It  is  said  that  he  adopted  the 
Received  Text  at  the  request  of  the  Remonstrants  or 
Arminians,  whom  he  had  joined  on  leaving  Basle.  The 
various  readings  were  afterward  inserted  in  the  text 
of  a  Greek  Testament  published  in  London,  in  1763, 
by  W.  Bo^vyer.  Although  his  Prolegomena  of  1730 
had  announced  that  his  edition  was  to  be  derived  from 
the  oldest  manuscripts,  and  although  he  had  originally 
shown  a  disposition  to  take  Codex  A  as  the  basis  of  his 
text,  his  views  as  to  the  oldest  Greek  uncials  had  evi- 
dently undergone  a  change  before  the  publication  of 
his  Testament,  in  which  he  attacked  the  whole  body  of 
the  older  codices  under  the  name  of  "  codices  Latini- 
zantes,"  as  being  conformed  to  the  Latin  Version. 
Everything  in  them  which  agreed  with  the  Latin  was 
denounced  as  an  interpolation  from  that  version. 

But  notwithstanding  Wetstein's  defects,  his  services    Services  to 
to  the  cause  of  textual  criticism  were  of  great  value.  crUicfsm. 
The  number  of   manuscripts  collated  by  him  was  a 
little  over  a  hundred,  and  about  eleven  were  examined 


92 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Semler  edits 
Wetstein's 
Prole- 
gomena. 


Expands 
Bengel's 
theory  of 
families. 


for  him  by  others.  Besides  his  own  collations,  he 
collected  the  collations  of  Mill  and  others,  and  reex- 
amined many  of  the  Versions  and  Fathers.  His  col- 
lations, though  not  up  to  the  modern  standard  of 
accuracy,  were  more  careful  than  had  been  usual.  He 
was  the  first  to  investigate  the  Philoxenian  Version. 
He  was  superior  to  Bengel  as  a  collator,  and  his  know- 
ledge of  authorities  was  more  extensive ;  but  he  was  not 
Bengel's  equal  in  judgment.  He  was  more  acute  in 
observing  phenomena  than  accurate  in  accounting  for 
them.  His  critical  disquisitions  were  disfigured  by 
the  introduction  of  his  personal  controversies  ;  but  his 
account  of  the  Versions,  Fathers,  and  early  editions  was 
the  most  extensive  and  methodical  that  had  ever  been 
published ;  and  his  "  animadversiones  et  cautiones  "  in 
his  second  volume  were  discriminating  and  valuable.^ 

Wetstein's  Prolegomena  were  reprinted  at  Halle,  in 
1765,  by  Johann  Salomo  Semler,  Professor  of  Theology 
at  Halle.  Semler  was  the  leader  of  the  reaction  in 
Germany  against  the  traditional  views  of  the  canon  of 
Scripture.  His  edition  of  Wetstein  bore  the  title, 
Wetstenii  Lihelli  ad  Crisin  et  Interpretationem  Novi 
Testamenti.  It  contained  notes  and  remarks  of  his 
own,  with  facsimiles  of  manuscripts.  He  defended 
the  Graeco-Latin  codices  against  Wetstein's  charges. 
Still  later,  in  1831,  the  Prolegomena  were  issued  in  a 
condensed  form  by  J.  A.  Lotze,  Rotterdam. 

Semler  took  up  Bengel's  theory  of  families  and  ex- 
panded it.  Pie  was  the  first  to  apply  the  term  "  Re- 
cension "  to  the  ancient  texts,  an  error  which  has 
caused  some  confusion.  A  Recension  is  properly  a 
work  of  criticism  by  editors ;  but  it  is  used,  even  by 
some  modern  critics,  as  synonymous  with  "  family."  ^ 

1  A  summary  of  the  principal  points  is  given  by  Tregelles, 
Printed  Text,  79  f. 

2  See  Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  84. 


TEE  FIRST  PERIOD  REVIEWED  93 

Semler  classified  mauuscriptSj  at  first,  under  two  "  Re- 
censions": (1)  Oriental,  or  that  of  Lucian ;  (2)  West- 
ern or  Egypto-Palestiniau,  and  that  of  Origen,  agree- 
ing with  the  Itala,  the  Memphitie,  and  the  Armenian. 
The  Vulgate,  he  thought,  proceeded  from  a  less  ancient 
text.  In  1767  he  made  three  recensions  :  (1)  Alexan- 
drian, used  by  the  Egyptian  writers,  the  pupils  of 
Origen,  and  the  Syriac,  Memphitie,  and  Ethiopic  Ver- 
sions ;  (2)  Oriental,  used  at  Antioch  and  Constantino- 
ple ;  (3)  Western.  In  the  later  codices  he  thought 
that  all  the  recensions  were  mixed.  Like  Bengel,  he 
insisted  that  codices  were  to  be  weighed  and  not  num- 
bered.^ 

A  review  of  the  first  period  exhibits,  in  the  begin-  Review  of 
ning,  a  scarcity  of  documentary  sources,  an  arbitrary   period! 
determination  of  the  text  on  a  false  and  narrow  basis, 
and  a  general  ignorance  of  the  comparative  value  of 
documents.     The  small  number  of  manuscripts  acces-  Obstacles. 
sible  or  used  was  only  one  of  the  obstacles  which 
opposed  the  purification  of  the  text.     Scholars  were 
unable  to  make  the  best   choice  from  among  those 
actually  at  hand,  or  were  not  accurate  in  comparing 
them,  or  estimated  the  value  of  readings  according  to 
their  number.     "In  consequence  of  the  astonishing 
number  of  copies  which  appeared  at  the  very  begin- 

1  Semler's  editorial  work  on  Wetstein  is  sharply  criticised  by 
Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  82. 

On  Wetstein:  Tisctiendorf,  Prolegomena,  243  ff.  C.  R. 
Hagenbach,  J.  J.  Wetstein  der  Kritiker  und  seine  Gegner, 
Zeitschr.  filr  d.  histor.  Theologie,  Leipzig,  1839,  Bd.  IX,  fasc.  1. 
Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  73-82.  Carl  Bertheau,  article  "  Wett- 
stein,"  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopadie. 

On  Semler :  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  187,  A.  Tholuck's 
article  "Semler,"  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopddie,  rev.  by 
Tzschimer.  J.  S.  Semler,  Hermeneutische  Vorbereitung,  Halle, 
1765.  Id.,  Apparatiis  ad  Liheralem  N.  T.  Interpretationem^ 
Halle,  1767. 


94  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

ning,  in  a  long  series  of  manual  editions,  mostly  from 
one  and  the  same  recension,  the  idea  grew  up  spon- 
taneously very  early  that  in  the  manuscripts  also  the 
text  was  tolerably  uniform,  and  that  any  thorough 
revision  of  it  was  unnecessary  and  impertinent.  The 
Oriental  Versions  were  closed  to  most;  the  impor- 
tance of  the  Church  Fathers  was  scarcely  suspected ; 
but  the  greatest  lack  of  all  for  the  purification  of  the 
text  was  the  indispensable  knowledge  of  the  process 
of  its  corruption  "  (Keuss).  Moreover,  the  beginning 
of  the  seventeenth  century  was  marked  by  the  rise  of 
the  Purist  controversy.  The  Purists  maintained  that 
to  deny  that  God  gave  the  New  Testament  in  any- 
thing but  pure  classical  Greek  was  to  imperil  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  The  Wittemberg  Faculty,  in 
1638,  decreed  that  to  speak  of  barbarisms  or  solecisms 
in  the  New  Testament  was  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Hence,  a  correct  conception  of  the 
peculiar  idiom  of  the  Apostles  was  impossible,  and 
the  estimate  of  different  readings  was  seriously 
affected  by  this  cause.  Keadings  of  existing  edi- 
tions were  arbitrarily  mingled,  the  manuscripts  em- 
ployed and  the  sources  of  variants  adopted  were  not 
properly  specified,  and  a  full  survey  of  the  apparatus 
was  impossible.^ 

The  number  of  uncial  sources,  however,  gradually 
increased;  the  existence  of  various  readings  was 
recognised,  but  they  were  merely  registered,  and  not 
applied  to  the  construction  of  a  purer  text.     There 

1  A  useful  table,  showing  the  dates  at  which  the  extant  Greek 
uncials  of  the  sixth  and  earHer  centuries,  with  five  others  of 
later  date  but  comparatively  ancient  text,  have  become  avail- 
able as  evidence  from  1550  down  to  1880,  may  be  found  in  Dr. 
Hort's  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testament, 
14,  16.  The  table  exhibits  the  dates  of  imperfect  publication 
by  selection  of  readings,  of  tolerably  full  collations,  and  of  con- 
tinuous texts. 


THE  FIRST  PERIOD  REVIEWED  95 

began  to  be  signs  of  revolt  against  the  authority  of  Signs  of  im- 
the  Textus  Receptus  and  attempts  to  restore  the  text  P'^ovement. 
on  the  evidence  of  manuscript  readings.  There  arose 
a  growing  distrust  of  the  numerical  basis  of  evidence. 
Manuscripts  began  to  be  weighed  instead  of  counted. 
There  was  a  dawning  recognition  of  the  value  of 
ancient  documents  and  a  corresponding  effort  to 
formulate  principles  of  classification.  A  large  mass 
of  material,  relating  to  manuscripts,  Fathers,  and  Ver- 
sions, was  collected,  which  awaited  thorough  sifting 
and  arrangement,  and  the  doctrine  of  families  of  texts 
was  broached.  Through  all  the  Received  Text  sub- 
stantially maintained  its  supremacy,  though  its  preten- 
sions were  boldly  challenged  by  individual  critics ;  its 
chain  was  rudely  shaken  and  more  than  once  broken, 
and  its  authority  began  to  be  visibly  weakened. 

For  twenty  years  after  the  appearance  of  Wetstein's 
edition  little  progress  was  made  in  the  arrangement 
and  application  of  the  large  accumulations,  and  no 
attempt  to  carry  out  the  suggestions  of  Bentley,  Ben- 
gel,  and  Semler  respecting  the  classification  of  docu- 
ments. In  England,  the  attention  of  students  was 
directed  to  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The 
superstitious  hesitancy  about  departing  from  the  Re- 
ceived Text  still  prevailed,  and  the  critical  valuation 
of  the  older  uncials  was  suffering  seriously  from 
Wetstein's  sweeping  charge  of  latinisation. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  SECOND  PERIOD:  TRANSITION  FROM  THE 
TEXTUS  RECEPTUS  TO  THE  OLDER  UNCIAL 
TEXT    (1770-1830).      GRIESBACH 


In  studying  this  period  we  shall  observe  an  en- 
larged comparison  of  the  three  sources  of  the  text 
and  an  issue  of  critical  canons.  We  shall  see  that  the 
dominion  of  the  Textus  Eeceptus  is  not  overthrown, 
but  that  that  text  is  gradually  improved,  and  that 
there  is  a  growing  departure  from  it  in  the  direction 
of  an  older  and  better  text. 

The  great  name  which  marks  the  real  inauguration 
of  this  period  is  that  of  John  Jacob  Griesbach,  1745- 
1812;  but  before  considering  his  work,  something 
should  be  said  of  several  others  from  whose  labours  he 
derived  valuable  aid. 

In  1776  Edward  Harwood,  of  London,  issued  an 
edition,  applying  the  Codex  Cantabrigiensis  (D)  in 
the  Gospels  and  Acts,  the  Codex  Claromontanus  (D2) 
in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  the  Codex  Alexandrinus 
(A)  where  these  were  wanting.  He  departed  con- 
siderably from  the  Elzevir  text,  and  presented  a  num- 
ber of  new  readings,  many  of  which  are  approved  by 
modern  critics. 

Christian  Frederic  Matthaei,  a  Thuringian,  was 
Professor  at  Wittemberg  and  afterward  at  Moscow, 
where  he  found  a  quantity  of  Greek  manuscripts,  both 
biblical   and   patristic,    originally  brought   from   Mt. 

96 


a  critic. 


C.  F.  MATTH^I  97 

Athos,  uncollated,  aud  almost  entirely  unknown   in 
Western  Europe.^ 

From  these  materials  he  prepared  an  edition  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  first  volume  of  which  was  pub- 
lished at  Kiga  in  1782,  and  the  remainder  at  intervals 
during  the  next  six  years.  The  whole  formed  twelve 
thin  volumes,  each  containing  a  preface,  with  fac- 
similes of  manuscripts.  The  Greek  text  was  accom- 
panied with  a  Latin  Version.  His  second  edition,  in 
three  volumes,  1803-1807,  omitted  the  Latin  Version 
and  most  of  the  critical  notes.  In  this  edition  he 
speaks  of  having  made  collations  of  fresh  manuscripts, 
but  these  have  disappeared.  With  good  scholarship, 
he  was  ignorant  of  critical  principles  and  of  what  had  Character; 
been  accomplished  by  former  editors,  not  having 
seen,  when  he  began,  the  editions  of  either  Mill  or 
Wetstein.  He  was  unable  to  estimate  the  comparative 
value  of  codices.  He  was  a  laborious  and  thorough 
collator,  but  a  poor  critic.  His  prefaces  were  devoid 
of  arrangement,  and  his  judgments  were  warped  by  a 
hasty  temper,  which  vented  itself  especially  upon 
Griesbach.  He  utterly  repudiated  the  theory  of 
families  of  texts,  decried  the  evidence  of  patristic 
citations,  and  seconded  Wetstein  in  his  depreciation 
of  the  earliest  manuscripts.  His  test  of  the  value  of 
manuscripts  was  their  agreement  with  those  current 
in  later  times.  The  manuscripts  on  which  his  text 
was  based  were  of  inferior  value,  belonging  to  the 
family  which  Bengel  had  styled  "Asiatic,"  and  which 
Griesbach  called  "  Constantinopolitan."  His  only 
claim  to  notice  lies  in  his  excellence  as  a  collator.^ 

1  To  him  solely  we  are  indebted  for  Evan.  V,  237-250  ;  Acts 
98-107  ;  P.  113-124  ;  Ap.  47-50;  nearly  all  at  Moscow.  Full 
list  in  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  249  f. 

2  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  249  f.  Scrivener,  Intro- 
duction, II,  216-219.     Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  85. 

H 


98  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

Francis  Karl  Alter,  a  Jesuit  of  Silesia,  was  Pro- 
fessor of  Greek  at  Vienna.  His  edition  of  the  New 
Testament  in  two  volumes,  8vo,  Vienna,  1786-87, 
was  founded  on  a  manuscript  in  the  Imperial  Library 
at  Vienna  (Evan.  218,  Acts  65,  P.  57,  Ap.  83),  which 
had  some  value,  but  was  not  remarkable  nor  ancient. 
This  he  printed  at  full  length,  correcting  scribal 
errors  by  Stephen's  edition  of  1546,  and  collating 
with  his  text  twenty-one  other  manuscripts  from  the 
Vienna  Library.  He  added  readings  from  the  Coptic 
Version,  from  four  Slavonic  Codices,  and  from  one 
Latin  Codex.^ 

Christian  VII,  King  of  Denmark,  employed  to 
examine  manuscripts  in  different  countries  a  com- 
pany consisting  of  Andrew  Birch,  a  Lutheran  bishop 
in  Denmark,  Jacob  G.  C.  Adler,  D.  G.  Moldenhauer, 
and  0.  G.  Tychsen,  a  distinguished  Orientalist.  Their 
labours  were  confined  principally  to  Spain  and  Italy, 
and  occupied  several  years.  The  results  were  edited 
by  Birch  in  his  folio  edition  of  the  Four  Gospels, 
Copenhagen,  1788.  The  text  was  Stephen's,  1550,  to 
which  were  added  the  various  readings  collected  by 
the  company,  descriptive  prolegomena,  and  facsimiles. 
The  readings  of  B  were  now  published  for  the  first 
time,  partly  from  Birch's  own  collation,  and  partly 
from  that  made  for  Bentley.  The  completion  of  the 
edition  was  prevented  by  a  fire  in  the  printing-house 
in  1795.  The  various  readings  collected  for  the  Acts 
and  Epistles  were  issued  in  1798,  and  those  for  the 
Apocalypse  in  1800.  In  1801  the  readings  accom- 
panying the  text  of  the  Gospels  were  revised,  reedited, 
and  printed  in  a  form  to  correspond  with  the  portions 
already  issued.  Tregelles  says  that  Birch  probably 
did  more  than  any  other  scholar  in  the  collation  of 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  254.  Scrivener,  Introduc- 
tion, II,  220. 


J".  J.  GBIESBACH 


99 


manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament;  and  Scrivener 
speaks  in  high  terms  of  his  conscientiousness  and 
appreciation  of  the  difficulties  of  his  task,  and  re- 
marks that  he  was  almost  the  first  to  open  to  us  the 
literary  treasures  of  the  Vatican,  of  Florence,  and  of 
Venice.  Quite  different  was  the  work  of  Molden- 
hauer  and  Tychsen  in  Spain,  which  was  performed  in 
a  slovenly  and  superficial  manner,  principally  because 
of  their  dislike  for  Spain  and  its  religion. 

While,  as  already  remarked,  little  if  anything  was 
done  for  twenty  years  after  Wetstein  by  way  of  apply- 
ing the  accumulations  of  himself  and  of  his  prede- 
cessors, the  work  of  accumulation  was  not  arrested. 
Besides  the  collections  of  Matthsei  and  Birch,  the 
texts  of  several  important  documents  were  printed, 
among  them  the  New  Testament  portion  of  A,  edited 
by  Woide  in  1786.  Kipling  published  Codex  D  in 
1793,  and  Matthsei  edited  the  Greek  and  Latin  Codex 
G  of  Paul's  Epistles  (Boernerianus,  ninth  century). 
Griesbach,  therefore,  had  the  advantage  of  larger  col- 
lections than  those  left  by  Wetstein.  In  the  twenty 
years  between  the  first  edition  of  Griesbach  and  the 
first  volume  of  his  second  edition,  the  materials  had 
increased  to  double  the  quantity  previously  known. 

Griesbach  was  a  native  of  Hesse  Darmstadt  and  a 
pupil  of  Semler.  He  was,  for  a  short  time.  Professor 
of  Divinity  at  Halle,  and  afterward  at  Jena.  In  1774 
he  issued  the  first  part  of  a  Greek  New  Testament  in 
which  the  first  Three  Gospels  were  arranged  synopti- 
cally.  The  Fourth  Gospel  and  Acts  appeared  in  1775, 
and  also  the  volume  containing  the  Epistles  and  the 
Apocalypse.  In  1777  the  first  part  of  the  work  was 
reprinted  with  the  Gospels  in  the  usual  order.  This 
portion,  with  the  issues  of  1775,  form  Griesbach^s  first 
edition.  The  critical  materials  were  drawn  largely 
from  Wetstein,  but  he  made  independent  additions. 


Work  of 
Molden- 
hauer  and 
Tychsen, 


Important 
texts  printed 
and  edited. 


J.  J.  Gries- 
bach. His 
first  edition. 


100 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Si/mbolsB 
Criticx  and 
the  secoud 
edition  of 
the  New 
Testament. 


Manual 
edition. 


He  did  not  adopt  many  new  readings,  and  the  Re- 
ceived Text,  while  not  wholly  followed,  was  taken  as 
a  basis.^  He  gave  a  number  of  readings  in  the  margin, 
classified  according  to  families. 

His  Symbolce  Criticce,  two  volumes,  1785,  1793,  fur- 
ther prepared  the  way  for  his  second  edition.  This 
had  behind  it  twenty  years  of  wider  study,  besides  the 
work  of  Harwood,  Matthaei,  Birch,  Alter,  and  others. 
The  first  volume  appeared  in  1796,  the  second  in  1806. 
His  critical  apparatus  was  larger  than  in  the  first 
edition.  In  his  preface  he  laid  down  his  principles  of 
criticism  and  dealt  with  the  history  of  the  text.  He 
had  studied  the  readings  in  Origen,  had  inspected 
Codices  A  and  D  of  the  Gospels,  and  had  carefully 
examined  C.  Besides  these  he  had  consulted  twenty- 
six  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels,  ten  of  the  Acts,  fifteen 
of  Paul,  and  one  of  the  Apocalypse,  with  twelve  Lec- 
tionaries  of  the  Gospels,  and  two  of  the  Apostles,  He 
did  not  exhibit  all  the  results  of  his  own  collations  nor 
of  those  of  his  predecessors,  his  purpose  being  to  use 
their  material  for  the  illustration  of  his  own  principles, 
and  thus  to  help  students  to  independent  conclusions 
concerning  readings.  In  1805,  the  year  before  the  issue 
of  his  second  volume,  he  published  a  manual  edition 
containing  the  text  and  the  more  important  various 
readings,  but  without  giving  the  authorities  for  the 
readings.  This  edition,  differing  in  some  places  from 
the  larger  work,  represents  his  matured  and  final  con- 
clusions on  the  New  Testament  text. 

With  Griesbach,  really  critical  texts  may  be  said  to 
have  begun.  The  critical  conditions  which  confronted 
him  were  these:  A  vast  mass  of  material  had  been 
accumulated ;  many  manuscripts  and  versions  had  been 
examined,  but  the  examination  had  been  partial ;  the 


For  details,  see  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  246. 


J.  J.  GBIESBACH  101 

suggestions  of  Bengel  and  Bentley  concerning  the  classi- 
fication of  manuscripts  had  been  disregarded ;  there  was 
still  much  hesitancy  about  departing  from  the  Eeceived 
Text ;  Wetstein's  depreciation  of  the  character  of  the 
most  ancient  codices  had  taken  effect,  and  had  greatly 
impaired  the  sense  of  their  value.  The  task  which 
lay  before  Griesbach  was  to  vindicate  the  authority  of 
the  older  codices,  to  classify  authorities,  and  to  use 
them  critically  and  consistently  for  the  restoration  of 
the  text. 

He  took  issue  with  Wetstein  on  the  value  of  the  His  views  of 
ancient  manuscripts,  and  followed  in  the  track  of  ^auuscripts 
Bentley,  Bengel,  and  Semler.  He  adopted  the  family-  and  fami- 
theory,  holding,  with  Bengel,  a  twofold  division, —  ^®^' 
Asiatic  or  Byzantine  and  African,  but,  like  Semler, 
dividing  the  African  into  two  parts,  thus  making  three 
classes,  two  ancient,  and  one  later.  These  he  denom- 
inated Western,  Alexandrian,  and  Constantinopolitan. 
The  Western,  with  its  numerous  glosses,  represented 
the  text  which  had  been  in  circulation  in  the  earlier 
times,  but  which,  owing  to  the  errors  of  copyists,  re- 
quired much  correction.  The  Alexandrian  was  an 
attempt  to  revise  this  text,  and  was  marked  by  correc- 
tions of  grammar  and  style.  The  Constantinopolitan, 
Bengel's  Asiatic,  flowed  from  the  other  two.  The 
Western  and  Alexandrian  existed  as  distinct  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century.  The  standard  of 
the  Alexandrian  text  was  Origen.  To  that  family 
would  belong  A,  B,  C,  L  (Gospels),  and  the  Egyptian 
and  some  minor  Versions.  To  the  Western  family 
would  belong  D  (Gospels  and  Acts)  and  other  ancient 
copies  containing  a  Latin  translation,  the  Old  Latin 
and  Vulgate,  and  the  Latin  Fathers.  The  Constantino- 
politan embraced  the  great  majority  of  manuscripts, 
with  the  larger  proportion  of  Versions  and  patristic 
writings.     In  deciding  on  a  reading  he  relied  chiefly 


critical 
canons 


102  TEXTUAL   CRITICIf^M 

on  the  evidence  furnished  by  union  of  families.  The 
agreement  of  the  Western  and  Alexandrian  he  regarded 
as  particularly  important,  often  decisive.  Thus,  in 
Matt.  19 :  17,  he  read  tl  /xe  epwras  Trcpi  tov  dyaOov ; 
*'  Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  the  good  ?  "  instead 
of  Ti/ae  Aeyets  dyaOovj  ^' Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  "  on 
the  joint  evidence  of  B  D  L,  the  Old  Latin  and  the  Vul- 
gate. In  this  reading  he  is  followed  by  Westcott  and 
Hort  and  Tischendorf,  and  the  testimony  of  i^,  which, 
of  course,  he  did  not  know,  has  been  added  to  that  of 
his  other  manuscripts. 
Grlesbach's  Among  the  critical  canons  laid  down  by  Griesbach 
are  the  following :  (1)  No  reading  must  be  considered 
preferable,  unless  it  has  the  support  of  at  least  some 
ancient  testimonies.  (2)  All  criticism  of  the  text  turns 
on  the  study  of  recensions  or  classes  of  documents. 
Not  single  documents  but  recensions  are  to  be  counted 
in  determining  readings.  (3)  The  shorter  reading  is  to 
be  preferred  to  the  longer.  This  canon  rests  on  the 
well-known  tendency  of  scribes  to  amplify  the  text, 
and  to  include  in  it  all  marginal  notes,  glosses,  etc.  It 
was  probably  in  this  way  that  the  episode  of  John  8  : 
1-11,  and  the  legend  of  the  angel  troubling  the  waters 
of  the  pool  of  Bethzatha,  John  5 : 4,  slipped  into  the 
text.  If  a  shorter  reading  is  elliptical,  obscure,  or 
harsh,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  copyist  may  have 
felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  fill  out  the  ellipsis,  or  to  add 
some  words  in  order  to  render  it  less  obscure  or 
smoother.  (4)  The  more  difficult  reading  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  easier.  This  canon  was  first  laid  down 
by  Bengel.  It  grows  out  of  the  tendency  of  copyists 
to  alter  what  they  did  not  understand  into  something 
which  they  did  understand.  A  scribe  might  be  puz- 
zled by  a  solecism,  or  by  the  irregular  use  of  a  word, 
or  by  a  Hebraism,  or  by  a  want  of  connexion,  and,  in 
entire  good  faith,  change  the  reading  so  as  to  make  it, 


J.  J.  GRIESBACH  103 

as  he  thought,  more  intelligible.  Thus  may  probably 
be  explained,  in  Matt.  6  : 1,  the  change  of  SiKaLoa-vvrjv, 
^'righteousness,"  into  iXerjixoa-vvrjv,  "alms";  and  of 
d/xapTTy/xaros,  " sin,"  in  Mark  3:29,  into  KptVews,  "judg- 
ment." (5)  Along  with  this  canon  and  included  in 
it  goes  the  canon  that  the  reading  which,  at  first 
sight,  appears  to  convey  a  false  sense,  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  other  readings.  Thus,  in  1  Cor.  11 :  29, 
dva^to)?,  "unworthily,"  is  omitted  by  the  best  texts. 
Reading  the  text  with  this  omission,  the  first  impres- 
sion would  be  that  the  verse  absolutely  affirms  that  he 
that  eats  and  drinks  does  not  discern  the  Lord's  body, 
and  therefore  incurs  judgment.  The  difficulty  vanishes 
when  the  proper  conditional  force  is  given  to  firj,  and 
we  read,  "  He  that  eateth  and  drinketh,  eateth  and 
drinketh  judgment  to  himself  if  he  do  not  discern 
(or  distinguish)  the  body."  Probably  the  scribe,  not 
appreciating  the  conditional  force  of  fxrj,  and  being 
staggered  by  his  false  impression  of  the  statement, 
imported  dva^tws  into  the  passage  from  ver.  27. 

The  line  of  distinction  which  G-riesbach  drew  be-  Abandoned 
tween  Alexandrian  and  Western  it  was  impossible  to  ffo^ub^ltween 
maintain.     On  this  point  he  virtually  abandoned  his  Alexandrian 
former  conclusion.     In  his  "  Commentarius  Criticus,"  ern.     ^^^ 
1811,  he  showed  that  the  readings  of  Origen  do  not 
accord  precisely  with  the  Alexandrian  Recension  to 
which  he  had  assigned  them.     Indeed,  the  practical 
weight  of    his  whole  system  of  recensions  was  im- 
paired by  his  own  declaration  that  in  none  of  the  ex- 
isting codices  is  a  recension  contained  in  its  purity. 
In  several,  and  those  our  oldest  manuscripts,  a  differ- 
ence of  recension  is  apparent  in  the  individual  parts. 
A,  for  example,  follows  one  recension  in  the  Gospels, 
another  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  still  another  in 
the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles.     The  term  "  Western  " 
was  misapplied,  since  this  type  of  text  is  not  confined 


104 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Inconsis- 
tency in  his 
defercHce  to 
the  Textus 
Receptus. 


to  the  "West.^  Moreover,  the  manuscripts  on  which  the 
Textus  Receptus  is  based  belong  to  the  Byzantine 
family,  so  that  Griesbach's  scanty  respect  for  that 
family  was  not  consistent  with  the  deference  paid  in 
his  edition  to  the  Textus  Eeceptus,  He  did  not  really 
take  as  his  textual  basis  the  ancient  texts  in  which  he 
professed  the  most  confidence.  He  did  not  take  the 
decisive  step  of  entirely  disregarding  the  Textus  Re- 
ceptus, and  forming  a  text  resting  on  the  best  authori- 
ties throughout.^ 

Griesbach's  text  is  the  basis  of  many  manual  edi- 
tions, as  those  of  Schott,  Marker,  Knapp,  Tittmann, 
Hahn,  and  Theile.  Hahn's  was  republished  at  New 
York,  in  1842,  by  Dr.  Edward  Robinson.^ 

1  See  G.  Salmon,  Some  Criticism  of  the  Text  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament^ 46  ff. 

2  The  critical  discussion  of  Griesbach's  classification  may  be 
studied  in  Hort's  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek 
Testament.,  183,  and  in  Scrivener's  Introduction,  II,  224  ff. 
Dr.  Hoit,  while  criticising  Griesbach's  conclusions,  expresses 
himself  as  venerating  the  name  of  Griesbach  above  that  of  every 
other  textual  critic  of  the  New  Testament.  He  says,  "  What 
Bengel  had  sketched  tentatively,  was  verified  and  worked  out 
with  admirable  patience,  sagacity,  and  candor  by  Griesbach, 
who  was  equally  great  in  independent  investigation  and  in  his 
power  of  estimating  the  results  arrived  at  by  others."  Tre- 
gelles  says  that  though  his  later  critical  edition  is  more  complete, 
and  in  all  respects  more  valuable,  yet,  if  his  system  of  recen- 
sions in  its  application  is  the  subject  of  examination,  the  first 
edition  is  necessary  {Printed  Text,  84). 

8  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  188  ff.,  240  ff.  Scrivener, 
Introduction,  II,  216,  222-226.  Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  83-85, 
88-92.  Hort,  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testa- 
ment, 181-186.  Reuss,  Bibliotheca  Novi  Testamenti,  103-204, 
and  article  "Griesbach,"  in  Herzog's  Beal-Encyklopadie. 
Augusti,  ijher  Griesbach'' s  Verdienste,  Breslau,  1812.  R.  Lau- 
rence, Bemarks  on  the  Systematical  Classification  of  Manu- 
scripts adopted  by  Griesbach  in  his  Edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, Oxford,  1814.  O.  von  Gebhardt,  article  "Bibeltext,"  in 
Herzog's  Beal-Encyklopddie. 


CHAPTER   XI 

THE   SECOND  PERIOD  (1770-1830).     THE  SUCCESSORS 
OF   GRIESBACH 

J.  L.  Hug  (1765-1846),  a  Roman  Catholic  Professor  Hug  pro- 
at  Freiburg,  in  liis  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  cles  Neuen  system  of 
Testament,  1808,  proposed,  as  a  corrective  of  the  views  recensions, 
of  Bengel  and  Griesbach,  a  new  system  of  recensions. 
According  to  him,  the  text,  in  the  general  mass  of 
codices,  had  degenerated,  by  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  into  the  form  exhibited  in  Codex  Bezse  (D) 
of  the  Gospels,  the  Old  Latin,  Sahidic,  and  to  some  ex- 
tent the  Peshitto  Versions,  and  in  the  citations  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  of  Origen  in  his  earlier 
works.  To  this  text  he  gave  the  name  Koivq  €K8oa-L<;, 
"common  edition."  He  supposed  that  it  received 
three  separate  revisions  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  —  one  by  Origen,  adopted  by  Jerome,  and  two 
others,  by  Hesychius  in  Egypt,  and  Lucian  in  Antioch, 
both  which  Jerome  condemned,  and  Pope  Gelasius 
(492-96)  declared  to  be  apocryphal.^  His  views  were 
adopted,  with  some  modifications,  notably  the  rejection 
of  the  Origenian  Revision,  by  J.  G.  Eichhorn,  Ein- 
leitung in  das  Neue  Testament,  Leipzig,  1827.  The 
theory  has  been  shown  to  be  baseless,  though  it 
"  brought  out  the  fact  of  the  early  broad  currency  of 
the  Western  Text"  (Warfield).^ 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  194. 

2  It  found,  however,  a  feeble  resurrectionist  and  defender  a 
few  years  ago,  in  Dr.  G.  W.  Samson,  The  English  Bevisers' 

106 


106 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


It  should  be  added,  however,  that  to  Hug's  De 
Antiquitate  Vaticani  Codicis  Commentatio,  1810,  is 
due  the  merit  of  first  placing  that  document  in  its  true 
rank.  His  conclusion  as  to  its  date  is  generally  ac- 
cepted by  modern  critics.^ 

Scholz.  —  The  backward  movement  of  Matthaei  was 
seconded  by  John  Martin  Augustine  Scholz,  Roman 
Catholic  Dean  of  Theology  in  the  mixed  Universit}'  of 
Bonn,  and  a  pupil  of  Hug.  He  was  an  extensive 
traveller,  and  collected  in  his  journeys  a  vast  amount 
of  fresh  material  which  appeared  in  his  OurcB  CriticjB 
in  Historiam  Textus  EvangeUoriim,lleidelheTgylS20'^ 
his  BiUisalikritische  Reise,  Leipzig,  1823;  and  his 
Novum  Testamentum  Greece,  4to,  Leipzig,  1830,  1836.^ 

The  number  of  codices  registered  by  him  for  the 
first  time  was  616,  of  which,  however,  he  collated  en- 
tire only  thirteen.  Scrivener  says,  "His  inaccuracy 
in  the  description  of  manuscripts  which  he  must  have 
had  before  him  when  he  was  writing  is  most  weari- 
some to  those  who  have  had  to  trace  his  steps,  and  to 
verify  or  rather  falsify  his  statements."^ 

Scholz  frequently  departed  from  the  Textus  Recep- 

QreeJc  Text  shown  to  he  unautliorised  except  by  Egyptian  Copies 
discarded  by  Greeks,  and  to  be  opposed  to  the  Historic  Text  of 
All  Ages  and  Churches,  Cambridge,  Mass.  Dr.  Schaff  charac- 
terises the  treatise  as  "  a  curious  anachronism," 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  192.  Tregelles,  Printed 
Text,  90.  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  270-272.  Hort,  In- 
troduction to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testament,  181-183. 

2  For  details  of  Scholz's  collections,  see  Tischendorf,  Prole- 
gomena, 630-638,  659-665,  679-681,  702-714,  943-945. 

8  Dr.  C.  R.  Gregory  (Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf,  192)  de- 
scribes him  as  "  Itineribus  prseclarior  quam  doctrina,  codicum 
conlator  neglegentissimus."  Compare  267.  Biirgon  speaks  of 
him  as  "an  incorrigible  blunderer."  But  Dr.  Gregory,  in  a 
recent  lecture  at  Union  Seminary,  spoke  in  commendatory 
terms  of  Scholz,  and  asserted  that  he  was  a  more  careful  col- 
lator than  Scrivener. 


8CH0LZ  107 

tus,  and  yet,  on  the  whole,  preserved  it  in  preference 
to  that  of  the  Vulgate.  In  many  passages  in  which 
Griesbach  had  varied  from  the  Textus  Receptus,  on 
the  ground  of  the  antiquity  of  the  authorities,  Scholz 
followed  more  recent  documents  on  the  evidence  of 
number,  thus  adhering  to  readings  of  the  Received  Text. 

He  at  first  divided  documents  into  five  families, — two  Scholz's  sys- 
African  (Alexandrian  and  Western),  one  Asiatic,  one  families. 
Bj^zantine,  and  one  Cj^prian.  Later  he  adopted  Ben- 
gel's  classification,  and  maintained  that  the  true  text 
was  to  be  sought  in  the  Constantinopolitan  family, 
claiming  that  this  family  had  always  presented  one 
uniform  text,  which  had  become  traditional  through- 
out the  Greek  Church.  This  text  had  been  preserved 
without  serious  corruption  before  Constantinople  be- 
came the  seat  of  empire,  had  retained  its  general 
purity  in  the  fourth  century,  and  was  retained  and 
transmitted  in  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople. 
He  maintained  the  general  unity  in  text  of  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan manuscripts,  as  against  the  mutual 
discrepancies  of  the  Alexandrian  manuscripts  and 
Versions.  According  to  his  classification,  then,  the 
Alexandrian  famil}^  would  embrace  the  most  ancient 
manuscripts,  the  Old  Latin,  Jerome's  Vulgate,  the  two 
Egyptian  and  the  Ethiopic  Versions.  The  Constan- 
tinopolitan would  include  the  later  manuscripts  gener- 
ally, a  part  of  the  Old  Syriac,  the  later  Syriac,  Gothic, 
Georgian,  and  Slavonic  Versions,  and  certain  Fathers 
from  the  fourth  century  onward.  His  system  thus 
differed  from  Griesbach's  by  the  inclusion  of  Gries- 
bach's  "Western  family  in  the  Alexandrian,  and  by 
assigning  the  preference  to  the  Constantinopolitan, 
which,  according  to  Griesbach,  was  a  resultant  of  the 
Western  and  Alexandrian.^ 

1  Tregelles  says,   Printed    Text,  152:    "Scholz's  first  vol- 
ume was  published  in  1830.    The  second  did  not  appear  till 


108 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Careful  examination  would  have  shown  Scholz  the 
contrary  of  what  he  took  for  granted,  namely,  the  ex- 
istence of  a  standard,  public,  authorised  Constantino- 
politan  text.  Scrivener  has  shown  that  the  more 
modern  copies  do  not  contain  a  uniform  text,  and 
that,  "with  certain  points  of  general  resemblance, 
whereby  they  are  distinguished  from  the  older  docu- 
ments of  the  Alexandrian  class,  they  abound  with 
mutual  variations  so  numerous  and  perpetual  as  to 
vouch  for  the  independent  origin  of  nearly  all  of 
them."  1 

Scholz's  services  consisted  mainly  in  pointing  out 
the  localities  of  manuscripts.  The  greater  part  of  the 
documents  which  he  was  the  first  to  consult  were  re- 
corded in  his  list,  but  their  readings  did  not  appear  in 
his  collection  of  variants. 

The  gravitation  of  his  text  toward  the  Textus  Ke- 
ceptus  made  it  popular  with  conservative  critics  who 


1836.  Prior  to  that  year  I  made  a  particular  examination,  in 
the  Gospels,  of  those  readings  which  he  rejects  in  his  inner 
margin  as  Alexandrian  ;  in  the  course  of  this  examination,  and 
with  continued  reference  to  the  authorities  which  he  cited,  I 
observed  what  a  remarkable  body  of  witnesses  stood  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  text  which  he  had  adopted  as  Constantinopolitan. 
Thus  I  learned  that  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  were  witnesses 
against  his  text ;  and  not  only  so,  but  when  I  sought  to  ascertain 
the  character  of  these  manuscripts  themselves,  I  found  that 
they  were  continually  supported  by  many  of  the  older  versions. 
While  engaged  in  this  examination,  I  went  all  through  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gospel,  writing  in  the  margin  of  a  Greek  Testament  those 
well-supported  readings  which  Scholz  rejected.  This  was,  of 
course,  wholly  for  my  own  use ;  but  I  saw  that,  as  a  general 
principle,  the  modern  manuscripts  can  have  no  authority  apart 
from  ancient  evidence,  and  that  it  is  the  ancient  manuscripts 
alone  (although  comparatively  few  in  number)  which  show 
within  what  limits  we  have  to  look  as  to  the  real  ancient  text." 
1  See  also  Hort,  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek 
Testament,  144. 


FABEWELL   TO   THE  TEXTUS  BECEPTUS      109 

hesitated  at  Griesbach's  conclusions,  and  it  found 
many  friends  in  England.  Later  (1845),  Scliolz  re- 
tracted his  preference  for  the  Constantinopolitan  text, 
and  declared  that  if  a  new  edition  of  his  Greek  Testa- 
ment should  be  called  for,  he  would  receive  into  the 
text  most  of  the  Alexandrian  readings  which  he  had 
placed  in  his  margin.^ 

-Through  these  years  (1770-1830),"  says  Dr.  C.  R. 
Gregory,  "  the  controversy  was  between  the  adherents 
of  the  Received  Text  and  those  who  preferred  to  trust 
the  ancient  witnesses.  Harwood  alone  rejected  the 
Receptus,  and  he  was  rejected  by  his  peers.  Others, 
even  Griesbach,  showed  the  futility  of  holding  the 
Textus  Receptus  as  a  foundation  for  the  construction 
of  a  text.  At  this  point  we  bid  farewell  to  the  Textus  Farewell  to 
Receptus  without  regret:  a  new  day  is  dawning  —  the  R^^'^^tus^^ 
day  which  seeks  the  ancient  text  without  hindrance 
from  the  tradition  of  later  ages." 

1  See  Tiscliendorf,  Prolegomena,  192,  193,  255-257.  Scrive- 
ner, Introduction,  II,  226-230.  Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  92-97, 
179  ff.  J.  Scott  Porter,  Principles  of  Textual  Criticism,  Bel- 
fast, 1848.  F.  H.  A.  Scrivener,  A  Full  and  Exact  Collation  of 
about  Twenty  Gi'eek  Manuscripts  of  the  Holy  Gospels  (hitherto 
unexamined)  deposited  in  the  British  3Iuseum,  the  Archiepis- 
copal  Library  at  Lambeth,  etc.,  with  a  Critical  Introduction^ 
Cambridge,  1853. 


CHAPTER  XII 

TRIED  PERIOD  (1830-81).     EFFORTS  FOR  THE   RES- 
TORATION   OF    THE    PRIMITIVE    TEXT.       LACH- 

MANN 


Lachmann 
casts  aside 
the  Textus 
Receptus. 


Lachmann 's 
first  New 
Testament. 


A  NEW  period  began  in  1831,  when,  for  the  first 
time,  a  text  was  constructed  directly  from  the  ancient 
documents  without  the  intervention  of  any  printed 
edition,  and  when  the  first  systematic  attempt  was 
made  to  substitute  scientific  method  for  arbitrary 
choice  in  the  discrimination  of  various  readings.  To 
Carl  Lachmann  belongs  the  distinction  of  entirely 
casting  aside  the  Textus  Receptus,  and  placing  the 
New  Testament  text  wholly  on  the  basis  of  actual 
authority.  Lachmann  boldly  adopted  Bentley's  prin- 
ciple that  the  entire  text  is  to  be  formed  apart  from 
the  influence  of  printed  editions,  on  evidence.  Dr. 
Warfield  remarks  that  if  Bentley  had  completed  his 
edition,  he  would  have  antedated  the  step  of  Lach- 
mann by  a  century. 

Carl  Lachmann  was  Professor  of  Classical  Philology 
in  Berlin.  He  was  not  a  professional  theologian,  but 
a  philologist,  who  had  distinguished  himself  by  critical 
editions  of  Latin  and  German  classics.^ 

In  1831  he  published  a  small  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  with  a  brief  notice  of  his  plan,  followed  by 
a  list  of  the  places  in  which  his  readings  differed  from 

1  His  edition  of  Lucretius  still  ranks  among  standards.  A 
fourth  edition  of  the  text  was  issued  in  1871,  and  of  the  Com- 
mentary in  1882. 

110 


LACHMANN  111 

those  of  the  common  text,  and  referring  the  reader  for 
further  information  to  his  article  in  the  Stialien  und 
Kritiken,  (1830,  No.  4,  817-845).  He  declared  that 
he  had  followed  the  usage  of  the  most  ancient  Ori- 
ental churches;  that  where  this  was  not  uniform  he 
had  preferred  what  was  supported  by  the  consensus 
of  African  and  Italian  authorities ;  that  where  there 
was  great  uncertainty  it  was  indicated  partly  by  en- 
closing words  within  brackets,  and  partly  by  placing  a 
different  reading  in  the  margin,  the  so-called  Textus 
Receptus  being  allowed  no  place. 

His  larger  edition,  Novum  Testamentum  Greece  Larger 
et  Latine,  was  published  in  two  volumes  at  Berlin, 
1842-50.  In  this  he  was  aided  by  the  younger 
Philip  Buttmann,  who  added  the  critical  apparatus  of 
the  Greek  text,  and  also  published  a  small  edition 
based  on  the  Codex  Vaticanus  (1856,  1862,  1865). 

Lachmann    recognised    only    two    types    of    text :   His  types  of 
Oriental  (A,    B,    C,   Origen)    and   Occidental   (D,    E,   ^^^^' 
F,   G,  oldest  Latin  Versions,  Vulgate,  and  Western 
Fathers   from   Irenseus   down   to  Primasius  for  the 
Apocalypse).       He    entirely    disregarded    Byzantine 
authorities  and   the   Syriac  and  Egyptian  Versions. 

The  text  of  the  larger  edition  did  not  vary  greatly 
from  that  of  the  earlier.  Only  the  text  of  the  smaller 
edition  was  wholly  based  on  the  sources  which  he 
styled  "Oriental,"  while  in  the  larger,  he  used  the 
combined  evidence  of  Eastern  and  Western  authorities. 

His  object  was  purely  historical,  that  is,  to  present 
the  text  in  the  form  in  which  the  most  ancient  docu- 
ments, so  far  as  these  were  known,  had  transmitted 
it.     His  text  was  not  put  forth  as  the  original  or  final  His  aim  not 
text,  but  as  the  oldest  attainable  text,  namely,  that  of  but  th?oid- 
the  fourth  century,  as  an  historical  basis  for  further  est  attain- 
iiiquiries  which  might  lead  nearer  to  the  primitive  *   ®*®^- 
text. 


112 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Rules  for 
estimating 
comparative 
weight  of 
readings. 


Lachmann's 
use  of  the 
terms 

"  Eastern  " 
and  "  West- 
ern." 


He  laid  down  six  rules  for  estimating  the  comparar 
tive  weight  of  readings :  (1)  Nothing  is  better  attested 
than  that  in  which  all  authorities  agree.  (2)  The 
agreement  has  less  weight  if  part  of  the  authorities 
are  silent  or  in  any  way  defective.  (3)  The  evidence 
for  a  reading,  when  it  is  that  of  witnesses  of  different 
regions,  is  greater  than  that  of  the  witnesses  of  some 
particular  place,  differing  either  from  negligence  or 
from  set  purpose.  (4)  The  testimonies  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  doubtfully  balanced  when  witnesses  from 
widely  separated  regions  stand  opposed  to  others 
equally  wide  apart.  (5)  Readings  are  uncertain  which 
occur  habitually  in  different  forms  in  different  regions. 
(6)  Readings  are  of  weak  authority  which  are  not  uni- 
formly attested  in  the  same  region. 

With  Griesbach,  Lachmann  distinguished  between 
Eastern  and  Western  witnesses ;  but  the  peculiar  sense 
in  which  he  used  those  terms  caused  his  meaning 
to  be  misapprehended.  Others  had  used  the  term 
"Oriental"  or  "Asiatic"  to  denote  the  mass  of  the 
more  recent  manuscripts  gathered  from  the  churches 
of  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  and  Constantinople,  containing 
the  text  which  had,  perhaps,  originally  come  into  use 
in  the  regions  from  Antioch  to  Constantinople,  and 
classed  by  Griesbach  as  "Byzantine."  Lachmann 
meant  by  "Eastern"  the  few  ancient  codices  com- 
prised in  Griesbach's  Alexandrian  class.  His  wit- 
nesses were,  for  the  Gospels  A,  B,  C,  the  fragments 
P,  Q,  T,  Z,  sometimes  D.  For  the  Acts,  D,  Eo.  For 
Paul,  Da,  G2,  H3.  With  these  the  citations  of  Origen, 
the  Greek  remains  of  Irenseus,  the  Old  Latin  manu- 
scripts a,  b,  c,  and  the  citations  from  Cyprian,  Hilary 
of  Poitiers,  Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  and  Primasius.^ 

1  The  following  will  explain  the  notations  of  those  of  Lach- 
mann's authorities  which  may  be  less  familiar  :  — 

P,  Codex  Guelpherbytanus,  sixth  century,  Wolfenbiittel,  518 


LACHMANN  113 

Through  almost  a  quarter  of  the  New  Testament 
Lachmann  had  scarcely  any  means  of  deciding  how 
far  the  Eastern  witnesses  varied  in  readings.  There 
are  passages  in  which  at  most  two  manuscripts,  or 
perhaps  only  one,  contain  the  text.  Thus  an  error  in 
such  a  copy  or  copies  is  assumed  to  be  a  widely  spread 
reading  of  the  fourth  century.  It  is  to  be  remembered, 
further,  that  at  that  time  neither  B  nor  C  had  been 
thoroughly  examined.  Where  his  Eastern  witnesses 
disagreed,  he  had  recourse  to  Western  sources ;  and, 
these  failing,  to  sources  of  inferior  age  and  authority. 

It  is  thus  evident  that  his  method  was  too  rigid.  His  method 
and  the  range  of  his  authorities  too  limited ;  and  it  is  *°°  "^^^" 
not  strange  that  his  text  was  regarded  as  an  innova- 
tion, and  treated  accordingly.  If  his  exposition  of 
his  plan  and  object  had  been  fuller  and  simpler,  his 
work  might  have  met  with  a  better  reception.  As  it 
is,  "  Let  any  objections  be  raised  to  the  plan,  let  incon- 
sistencies be  pointed  out  in  the  execution,  let  correc- 
tions of  varied  kinds  be  suggested,  still  the  fact  will 
remain  that  the  first  Greek  Testament,  since  the 
invention  of  printing,  edited  wholly  on  ancient  author- 
ity, irrespective  of  modern  traditions,  is  due  to  Charles 
Lachmann  "  (Tregelles). 

He  bestowed  great  pains  in  editing  the  Latin  Ver-  Great  pains 
sion  of  Jerome,  which  was  added  to  his  Greek  text.   ^If^^^'^  °'' 
His  principal  authorities  were  the   Codex  Fuldensis  Latin 
(sixth   century),   which    he    and    Buttmann    studied     ^'"s^^^- 

vv.  of  the  Gospels.  Q,  Codex  Guelpherbytanus  II,  fifth  century, 
palimpsest,  Wolfenbuttel,  247  vv.  of  Luke  and  John.  T,  Codex 
Borgianus  I,  fifth  century,  College  of  the  Propaganda  at  Rome, 
fragments  of  Luke  and  John,  Greek  text  with  Sahidic  or  The- 
baic Version.  Z,  Codex  Dublinensis,  sixth  century,  palimp- 
sest, Matthew.  E2,  Codex  Laudianus,  sixth  century,  Bodleian 
Library,  Oxford,  Acts.  G2,  Acts,  seventh  century,  St.  Peters- 
burg. H3,  Codex  Coislinianus,  sixth  century,  fragments  dis- 
tributed in  different  libraries,  Pauline  Epistles. 


114 


TEXTUAL   CBtTICISM 


together  at  Fulda  in  1839,  and  the  Codex  Amiatinus 
(sixth  century)  of  the  Laurentian  Library  at  Florence, 
a  description  of  which  may  be  found  in  Scrivener's 
Introduction,  II,  71.  Of  this  codex  he  had  only  an 
imperfect  collation.  With  these  and  some  other  aid 
from  manuscripts  he  revised  the  whole  of  Jerome's 
Version.  In  his  preface  he  gave  some  valuable  matter 
on  the  subject  of  the  Latin  texts.  He  held  that  the 
Old  Latin  proceeded  from  Northern  Africa,  and  that 
its  text  had  been  modernised  into  a  form  resembling 
the  later  Greek  manuscripts.-^ 

1  The  following  table  exhibits  a  few  of  Lachmann's  readings, 
compared  with  those  of  the  Textus  Receptus  and  Westcott  and 
Hort :  — 


Kec. 

LacuN 

W.  11. 

Matt.  21 :  31 : 

6  7rpa>TOS 

6  vo-repos 

6  vo-repos 

Luke  2: 14: 

evSoKia 

evSoKiag 

evSoKias 

Luke  T  :  31 : 

elne  de  6  Kvptos 

Omit 

Omit 

John  3 : 15 : 

fj-T)  ttTToArjTai  aW 

[ju.)j  anoKyjTai  aAA'] 

Omit 

John  3 : 34 : 

0e6s] 

eK  fxirpov  Sifioa- 

(TIV 

John  6 : 22 : 

eKeluo  eig  o  evep-qaav 
oi  fiaOrjTal  avToii 

Omit 

Omit 

John  6 : 51 : 

ffv  eyit)  Suiaoi 

Omit 

Omit 

Acts  13  :  33 : 

Tw  Sei/Te'po) 

T(jJ  TrpuiTO) 

TuJ  Sevreptfi 

Rom.  1 :  29  : 

■nopveiq. 

Omit 

Omit 

Kom.  5:1: 

exofiev 

e'xwp.e*'  (mg) 

fX^H^fv 

Kom.  5:2: 

Tjj  nia-rei 

[     ] 

[       ] 

Rom.  7  :  25  : 

€VXapL<TTO> 

X»pis 

Xipis 

1  Cor.  11  :  29  : 

ava^iiti<; 

Omit 

Omit 

Eph.  1:15: 

Ttfv  aYaTrT);/ 

Omit 

Omit 

Eph.  2  :  21 : 

TTaaa  17  oi«oSojixrj 

Omit  r, 

Omit  Jj 

Heb.  10  :  34  : 

SecTfJiOii 

6e<r/Atoi? 

Seff/xioK; 

Apoc.  18  : 3  : 

neiTO)Ke 

TreTTcoKai' 

ninrixiKay 

See  Hort,  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testa- 
mpnt,  13.  Lachmann's  Life,  by  Hertz,  Berlin,  1851.  Tischen- 
dorf,  Prolegomena,  193,  258-366.  Tregelle.s,  rdnted  Text, 
97-117.  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  231-235.  O.  von  Geb- 
hardt,   article   "  Bibeltext,"   in   Ilerzog's    Beal-Encijklopddie. 


HAEN,  THEILE,  BLOOMFIELB,  HORNE      115 

The  editions  of  Hahn  (1840, 1861)  and  Theile  (1844),  Hahn, 
based  on  the  Textus  Keceptus,  but  giving  many  read-  BlSJmfield 
ings  from  Griesbach,  and  some  from  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf,  did  nothing  to  promote  Textual  Criti- 
cism beyond  giving  wider  currency  to  the  new  read- 
ings.    The  successive  editions  of  Dr.  Samuel  Thomas 
Bloomfield,  published  in  England  and  America  (1832- 
43),  merely  testify  to  the  lack  of  the  critical  art  at 
that  time  and  in  those  countries.^     Equally  without 
critical  value  as  regarded  text  was  the  Introduction  to  Home's 
the  Critical  Studi/  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scrijytures,   '^^Q^^fy^*^^^' 
by  Thomas  Hartwell  Home,  which  passed  through  nine 

Tregelles's  appreciation  of  Lachmann  is  very  high,  and  his  re- 
marks concerning  him  are  very  interesting.  Scrivener  cannot 
accord  to  him  the  praise  of  wisdom  in  his  design,  or  of  over- 
much industry  and  care  in  the  execution  of  it ;  but  styles  him 
a  true  scholar,  both  in  spirit  and  accomplishments,  and  ascribes 
to  him  the  merit  of  restoring  the  Latin  Versions  to  their  proper 
rank  in  the  criticism  of  the  New  Testament.  Tischendorf,  in 
his  seventh  edition,  commented  severely  upon  Lachmann's  treat- 
ment of  many  passages,  claiming  that  he  had  not  followed  his 
own  principles.  Dr.  Gregory,  in  the  Prolegomena  to  Tischen- 
dorf s  eighth  edition,  speaks  of  him  generously  and  discrimi- 
natingly. 

1  Dr.  Gregorj^  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf,  267,  gives  a  list 
of  manuscripts  consulted  by  Bloomfield  at  Lambeth  and  in  the 
British  Museum,  and  Scrivener  notices  him  only  in  an  index  of 
writers,  owners,  and  collators.  Tregelles  (Printed  Text,  262, 
note)  says:  "Those  who  maintain  the  traditional  text  often 
invent  or  dream  their  facts,  and  then  draw  their  inferences. 
I  refer  the  reader  to  Dr.  Bloomfield's  Additional  Annotations  on 
the  Nexo  Testament,  who,  as  well  as  other  writers  devoted  to 
the  advocacy  of  similar  principles,  habitually  overlooks  the  real 
facts  in  the  statement  of  evidence  ;  and  thus  he  accuses  critics 
of  having  made  false  allegations  which  really  are  not  so,  of  in- 
serting or  cancelling  readings  which  they  have  not  inserted  or 
cancelled,  and  of  being  actuated  by  evil  motives,  such  as  no 
one  ought  to  think  of  imputing  without  sure  knowledge  and 
definite  proof." 


116 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 


Doedes, 
Reiche,  de 
Muralt. 


Porter, 
Norton. 


editions  in  England,  from  1818  to  1846,  and  was  printed 
three  times  in  America,  and  commanded  a  wide  influ- 
ence. 

In  Holland,  Jacob  Isaac  Doedes,  in  1844,  published 
a  Treatise  on  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, in  which  he  expressed  the  wish  that  the 
Textus  Keceptus  might  be  set  aside,  and  the  text 
printed  of  an  ancient  manuscript,  as  A,  with  various 
readings  from  the  oldest  Greek  codices.  From  George 
Eeiche,  Professor  at  Gottingen,  came,  in  1874,  A 
New  Description  of  some  notable  Ncav  Testament 
manuscripts  in  the  Paris  Library,  and  a  collation  with 
the  Eeceived  Text.^  The  New  Testament  of  Edward 
de  Muralt,  "  ad  fidem  codicis  principis  Vaticani,''  Ham- 
burg, 1848,  was  valuable  principally  for  its  collations 
of  a  few  St.  Petersburg  codices.  In  England,  John 
Scott  Porter,  a  pupil  of  Griesbach  and  Hug,  in  his 
Principles  of  Textual  Criticism,  etc.,  1848,  and  Samuel 
Davidson,  in  his  Treatise  on  Biblical  Criticism,  1852, 
gave  some  signs  of  a  progress  of  the  science.  Good 
critical  work  in  the  history  and  text  of  the  Gospels 
was  done  by  Andrews  Norton,  Professor  of  Sacred  Lit- 
erature at  Harvard  Divinity  School,  in  his  Evidences 
of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  1846. 

1  Dr.  Gregory  characterises  his  work  as  "not  luifmitful" 
with  respect  to  certain  minuscules,  but  says  that  he  represents 
a  backward  tendency  in  criticism.  Scrivener  approvingly  quotes 
Canon  Cook's  voucher  for  him  as  "  a  critic  remarkable  for  ex- 
tent and  accuracy  of  learning,  and  for  soundness  and  sobriety 
of  judgment." 


CHAPTER  Xin 


THE  THIRD  PERIOD  (1830-^1).     TISCHENDORF 


An  important  era  in  the  history  of  Textual  Criti- 
cism was  marked  by  the  labours  of  .-Enotheus  (Gottlob) 
Friedrich  Constantine  Tischendorf  (1815-74).  He 
was  appointed  Professor  of  Theology  at  Leipzig  in 
1813.  In  1810  he  began  a  series  of  journeys  for  the 
purpose  of  collecting  and  examining  authorities  for  the 
New  Testament  text.  From  Paris,  where  he  prepared 
for  publication  the  text  of  Codex  Ephraemi,  he  went  to 
England,  Holland,  and  Italy,  examining  and  collating 
manuscripts  in  every  great  library.  He  was  aided  in 
his  journeys  by  the  pecuniary  support  of  the  Saxon 
and  Russian  governments.  He  aimed  to  become  ac- 
quainted with  all  the  uncial  manuscripts  by  personal 
examination.  His  first  journey  to  the  East  was  made 
in  1814,  when  he  discovered  at  the  Mount  Sinai  Con- 
vent of  St.  Catherine  forty-three  leaves  of  Codex  j<  of 
the  LXX,  which  had  been  thrown  by  the  monks  into  a 
waste-basket  to  be  used  as  fuel.  These  were  published 
in  1846,  as  the  Codex  Friderico  Augustanus.  His 
third  eastern  excursion,  in  1859,  resulted  in  his  dis- 
covery of  the  remainder  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex,  includ- 
ing the  entire  New  Testament.  Having  secured  the 
loan  of  the  codex,  it  was  carried  to  Cairo,  where,  with 
the  aid  of  two  German  scribes,  he  transcribed  the 
whole  manuscript  of  110,000  lines,  and  noted  the 
12,000  changes  made  by  later  hands.  In  September, 
1849,  he  was  allowed  to  take  it  to  Europe  for  publica- 
117 


Tischendorf. 
His  series  of 
journeys. 


Discovery  of 
Codex  N  of 
LXX. 


Discovery  of 
N  of  the  New 
Testament. 


118  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

tion,  and  in  1862  it  was  issued  in  sumptuous  style,  in 
four  volumes,  at  the  expense  of  Alexander  II,  Czar  of 
Russia.  An  edition  containing  only  the  New  Testa- 
ment appeared  in  the  following  year.^  This  discovery 
Value  of  N.  -^as  a  most  important  contribution  to  the  study  of  the 
New  Testament  text.  The  date  assigned  by  Tischen- 
dorf  to  the  codex,  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  is 
generally  accepted.  He  thought  it  probable  that  it 
was  one  of  the  fifty  copies  which  Constantine  ordered 
to  be  prepared  for  the  churches  of  Constantinople  in 
331,  and  that  it  was  sent  by  the  Emperor  Justinian  to 
the  Sinaitic  Convent  which  had  been  founded  by  him. 
Tischendorf  declared  that  a  thousand  readings  of  the 
codex,  among  them  exceedingly  remarkable  and  im- 
portant ones,  sustained  by  the  oldest  Fathers  and  Ver- 
sions, are  found  in  neither  B  nor  A.  The  readings,  in 
many  passages,  agree  with  those  of  B,  and  Tischen- 
dorf held  that  the  hand  of  the  same  scribe  was  appar- 
ent in  portions  of  both,  though  conceding  that  the 
origin  of  the  two  was  not  the  same.  It  contains  twelve 
thousand  corrections,  made  by  the  original  scribes  or 

1  The  story  of  the  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex  is  told  by 
Tischendorf  in  Reise  in  den  Orient,  1845-46,  and  most  fully 
in  Die  Sinaibibel,  1871.  See  also  Wann  wurden  unsere  Evan- 
gelien  verfasst  ?  "  When  were  our  Gospels  written  ?  "  Trans- 
lation by  the  London  Religious  Tract  Society,  1867.  Also 
Georg  Ebers,  Durch  Gosen  zuni  Si7iai,  302-309,  Leipzig,  1872. 
The  charge  that  the  manuscript  was  stolen  under  pretext  of 
borrowing  is  false.  It  was  formally  presented  to  the  Czar  in 
1869  by  the  authorities  of  the  Mt.  Sinai  Convent.  Dr.  Philip 
Schaff  says  that  Tischendorf,  in  1871,  showed  him  two  letters 
from  Kallistratos  the  Prior,  in  one  of  which  he  distinctly  says 
that  the  codex  was  a  gift  (Jdoop-qdr))  to  the  Russian  emperor, 
"  as  a  testimony  of  eternal  devotion."  TJie  Czar  recognized  the 
gift  by  a  liberal  donation.  See  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Greek 
Testament  and  English  Version,  3d  ed..  Ill,  and  all  the  docu- 
mentary evidence  in  Gregory's  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf, 
350  f. 


TISCHENDORF 


119 


by  later  writers  running  from  the  fourth  to  the  seventh 
century.     It  frequently  agrees  with  the  Old  Latin. 

The  adherents  of  the  Textus  Receptus  have  en- 
deavoured to  belittle  the  importance  and  authority  of 
this  codex  as  well  as  that  of  B.  Notable  among  these 
assailants  was  the  late  J.  W.  Burgon,  Dean  of  Chi- 
chester, an  accomplished  scholar  but  a  bitter  contro- 
versialist. His  views  may  be  examined  in  The  Last 
Twelve  Verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark 
Vindicated,  etc.,  London,  1871,  and  in  The  Revision 
Revised,  London,  1883.  His  style  of  handling  the  two 
manuscripts  may  be  seen  from  the  following  extracts, 
taken  from  the  latter  work :  "  By  far  the  most  de- 
praved text  is  that  exhibited  by  Codex  D.  .  .  .  Kext 
to  D,  the  most  untrustworthy  codex  is  ^5,  which  bears 
on  its  front  a  memorable  note  of  the  evil  repute  under 
which  it  has  always  laboured,  viz.  it  is  found  that  at 
least  ten  revisers  between  the  fourth  and  the  twelfth 
centuries  busied  themselves  with  the  task  of  correct- 
ing its  many  and  extraordinary  perversions  of  the 
truth  of  Scripture.  Next  in  impurity  comes  B."  Re- 
ferring to  Bishop  Ellicott's  description  of  i^,  B,  A,  and 
C,  the  Dean  says  :  "  Could  ingenuity  have  devised  se- 
verer satire  than  such  a  description  of  four  profess- 
ing transcripts  of  a  book,  and  that  book  the  everlasting 


Gospel  itself 


Imagine  it  gravely  proposed,  by 


the  aid  of  four  such  conflicting  documents,  to  readjust 
the  text  of  the  funeral  oration  of  Pericles,  or  to  reedit 
Hamlet.  Risum  teneatis  aniici  ?  Why,  some  of  the 
poet's  most  familiar  lines  would  cease  to  be  recognisa- 
ble, e.g.  A,  — '  Toby  or  not  Toby,  that  is  the  question ' : 
B,  — '  Toby  or  not,  is  the  question ' :  S,  — '  To  be  a  tub 
or  not  to  be  a  tub,  the  question  is  that ' :  C,  —  '  The 
question  is,  to  beat  or  not  to  beat  Toby  ?  '  D  (the  '  sin- 
gular codex'),  —  'The  only  question  is  this,  to  beat 
that  Toby  or  to  be  a  tub  ?  '  " 


Attempts  to 
belittle  its 
importance 
and  author- 
ity.    Bur- 
gon's  attack. 


120  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

"  As  for  the  origin  of  these  two  curiosities  (^  and  B), 
it  can  perforce  only  be  divined  from  their  contents. 
That  they  exhibit  fabricated  texts  is  demonstrable. 
No  amount  of  honest  copying  —  persevered  in  for  any 
number  of  centuries  —  could  by  any  possibility  have 
resulted  in  two  such  documents.  Separated  from  one 
another  in  actual  date  by  fifty,  perhaps  by  one  hun- 
dred years,  they  must  needs  have  branched  off  from 
a  common  corrupt  ancestor,  and  straightway  become 
exposed  continuously  to  fresh  depraving  influences. 
The  result  is  that  Codex  ^,  which  evidently  has  gone 
through  more  adventures  and  fallen  into  worse  com- 
pany than  his  rival,  has  been  corrupted  to  a  far  graver 
extent  than  Codex  B,  and  is  even  more  untrustworthy." 
"  Lastly,  we  suspect  that  these  two  manuscripts  are  in- 
debted for  their  preservation  solely  to  their  ascertained 
evil  character,  which  has  occasioned  that  the  one 
eventually  found  its  way,  four  centuries  ago,  to  a  for- 
gotten shelf  in  the  Vatican  Library ;  while  the  other, 
after  exercising  the  ingenuity  of  several  generations 
of  critical  correctors,  eventually  got  deposited  in  the 
waste-paper  basket  of  the  convent  at  the  foot  of  Mt. 
Sinai.  Had  B  and  J<  been  copies  of  average  purity, 
they  must  long  since  have  shared  the  inevitable  fate  of 
books  which  are  freely  used  and  highly  prized,  namely, 
they  would  have  fallen  into  decadence  and  disappeared 
from  sight.  But  in  the  meantime,  behold,  their  very 
antiquity  has  come  to  be  reckoned  to  their  advantage, 
and  (strange  to  relate)  is  even  considered  to  constitute 
a  sufiB.cient  reason  why  they  should  enjoy  not  merely 
extraordinary  consideration,  but  the  actual  surrender  of 
the  critical  judgment." 
Replies  to  Burgon  was  answered  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  of  Cam- 

Burgoia.  bridge,  Mass.,  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  .Oriental 
Society,  1872,  X,  189-200,  602.  Dr.  Sand  ay,  in  the  Con- 
temporary Review  for  December,  1881,  declared  that  the 


TISCHENDORF 


121 


Tischen- 
dorf  s  edi- 
tions of  the 


one  tiling  -which  Burgou  lacked  was  a  grasp  on  the  cen- 
tral condition  of  the  problem,  and  that  he  did  not  seem 
to  have  the  faintest  glimmering  of  the  principle  of  gene- 
alogy. He  was  also  dealt  with  by  0.  von  Gebhardt,  in 
the  article  "  Bibeltext "  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopddie. 

In  the  same  line  with  Burgon,  but  more  moderate  in 
tone,  was  Canon  F.  C.  Cook,  Tlie  Revised  Version  of 
the  First  TJiree  Gospels,  London,  1882.^ 

Tischendorf's  labours  as  editor,  writer,  and  collator 
were  enormous.  The  catalogue  of  his  published  writ- 
ings occupies  fourteen  pages  of  Gregory's  Prolegomena. 
One  of  his  principal  claims  to  the  gratitude  of  textual 
students  is  the  number  of  texts  of  the  leading  uncials 
which  he  edited.^  Between  1841  and  1873  he  pub- 
lished twenty-four  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
if  we  include  the  reissues  of  his  stereotyped  Editio  NewTesta- 
Academica  (1855).  Of  these,  four  were  intended  °^®°** 
rather  for  common  or  academic  use  than  for  critical 
purposes.  The  first  edition  of  1841  contained  Pro- 
legomena concerning  Recensions,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  positions  of  Scholz,  which  he  repudiated. 
In  this  edition  he  followed,  essentially,  the  principles 
which  he  afterward  maintained.  In  1842  an  edition 
was  issued  at  Paris  in  large  8vo,  with  a  Latin  version 
according  to  ancient  witnesses,  and  in  the  same  year 
an  edition  in  12mo,  without  the  version  and  the  criti- 

1  The  most  elaborate  discussion  of  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican 
manuscripts  is  in  Dr.  Hort's  Introduction  to  Westcott  and  Hort's 
Greek  Testament,  210-270.  See  also  F.  H.  A.  Scrivener,  Colla- 
tion of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  3d  ed.,  1867,  Tischendorf,  Die 
Anfechtungen  der  Sinaibibel,  1863.  Id.,  Wafeyi  der  Finster- 
niss  icider  die  Sinaibibel,  186S.  Id.,  Die  Sinaibibel,  ihre  Ent- 
deckitng,  Herausgabe  und  Erwerbung,  1871.  J.  Rendel  Harris, 
New  Testament  Autographs,  Baltimore.  V.  Gardthausen,  Grie- 
chische  Palaeographie,  1879. 

2  See  the  list  in  Gregory's  Prolegomena,  7  fl.,  and  compare 
Scrivener's  Introduction,  II,  236  ff. 


122  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

cal  apparatus  of  the  larger  edition.  Three  editions 
appeared  in  1843,  neither  of  which  is  specially  sig- 
nificant. His  fifth  or  second  Leipzig  edition,  1849, 
contained  a  revised  text,  with  a  selection  of  various 
readings  embodying  the  results  of  his  own  collations 
since  his  first  edition.  "  This  edition  may  be  called 
epoch-making"  (Bertheau).  In  this  interval  he  had 
copied  or  collated  almost  every  known  uncial.  The 
work  also  contained  a  statement  of  his  critical  princi- 
ples. The  seventh  edition  (Editio  Septima  Critica 
Majo7\  1859)  was  issued  in  thirteen  parts  at  Leipzig. 
Scrivener  characterises  this  as  "  a  monument  of  per- 
severing industry  which  the  world  has  not  often  seen 
surpassed."  The  Prolegomena,  partly  from  the  edi- 
tion of  1849,  were  greatly  enlarged.  In  the  first 
volume  of  this  edition  he  showed  a  leaning  toward 
the  Textus  Keceptus  as  represented  by  the  cursives 
and  later  uncials ;  but  in  the  second  volume  he  re- 
turned to  the  older  uncial  text.  His  crowning  work, 
The  eighth  the  eighth  edition  (Editio  Octava  Critica  Major),  ap- 
edufon  peared  in  eleven  parts,  between  1864  and  1872.     It 

differed  from  that  of  1859  in  over   three   thousand 
places,  mostly  in  favour  of  the  oldest  uncial  text.^ 

1  Dr.  Scrivener  uses  this  fact  to  the  disparagement  of  Tischen- 
dorf,  remarking  that  it  was  ''to  the  scandal  of  the  science  of 
comparative  criticism,  as  well  as  to  his  own  grave  discredit  for 
discernment  and  consistency."  On  the  other  hand,  0.  von  Geb- 
hardt,  article  "Bibeltext,"  Herzog's  Recd-Eiicyklopadie^  regards 
the  fact  as  creditable  to  Tischendorf,  showing  his  willingness  to 
learn  from  new  sources  of  information.  He  says  that  the  ex- 
planation lies  not  only  in  the  enrichment  of  his  textual  apparatus 
through  the  discovery  of  the  Sinaitic  Codex,  but  before  all,  as 
Tischendorf  himself  declared,  in  the  emphasis  on  the  objective 
authority  of  the  oldest  witnesses,  irrespective  of  consequences 
to  subjective  considerations, —those  founded,  for  instance,  on 
possibilities  of  erroneous  transcription,  or  the  apparent  critical 
or  dogmatic  leanings  of  copyists. 


TISCHENBORF 


123 


Tischendorfs  death  in  December,  1874,  prevented 
the  preparation  of  the  Prolegomena  to  the  eighth  edi- 
tion. This  was  done  by  Dr.  Caspar  Rene  Gregory, 
assisted  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  and  was  issued  at  Leipzig 
in  1894.  Dr.  Abbot  died  before  the  work  was  com- 
pleted. "Caelestibus  adjunctus  animis,"  writes  Dr. 
Gregory  in  his  preface,  "  laude  mea  non  eget." 

Tischendorf  started  from  Lachmann's  principle, 
that  the  text  is  to  be  sought  in  ancient  evidence,  and 
especially  in  Greek  manuscripts,  but  without  neglect- 
ing the  testimonies  of  Versions  and  Fathers.  "  I  have 
learned,"  he  said,  "  that  the  great  profusion  of  various 
readings  which  is  commonly  paraded  in  books  is  a 
kind  of  splendid  distress."  Under  the  term,  "most 
ancient  Greek  Codices,"  he  included  documents  from 
the  fourth  to  about  the  ninth  century,  classified  ac- 
cording to  their  age,  the  older  being  the  more  authori- 
tative. Their  authority  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the 
corroborating  Versions  and  Fathers,  and  is  not  to  be 
rejected,  even  though  most  or  all  of  the  modern  copies 
read  differently.  His  range  was,  accordingly,  much 
larger  than  Lachmann's,  and  the  application  of  his 
principle  less  rigid.  While  Lachmann  aimed  at  at- 
taining only  the  oldest  text,  Tischendorf  sought  for 
the  best  text. 

He  treated  the  subject  of  recensions  cautiously. 
He  held  that  revisions  were  made  by  Hesychius  and 
Lucian,  but  that  the  extent  of  the  influence  of  these 
revisions  could  not  be  shown.  The  so-called  revision 
of  Origen  existed,  he  declared,  only  in  Hug's  imagina- 
tion. The  documentary  witnesses  which  have  de- 
scended to  us  may  be  thrown  into  certain  classes, 
especially  in  the  Gospels,  less  in  the  Apocalypse  than 
in  the  other  books,  more  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  and 
Acts  than  in  the  Catholic  Epistles.  He  recognised  a 
fourfold  division  in  two  pairs:  Alexandrian  and  Latin, 


The  Prole- 
gomena by 
Gregory  and 
Abbot. 


Tischen- 
dorf s  criti- 
cal princi- 
ples and 
methods. 


Classifica- 
tion of 
witnesses. 


124  TEXTUAL   CBITICISM 

Asiatic  and  Byzantine.  The  Alexandrian  was  in  use 
among  Eastern  Jewish  Christians,  whose  Greek,  like 
that  of  the  Apostles,  was  moulded  by  that  of  the 
Septuagint.  The  Latin  was  employed  by  Latins, 
whether  Latin  or  Greek-speaking.  The  Asiatic  pre- 
vailed among  Greeks,  whether  in  Asia  or  in  their  own 
country.  The  Byzantine  was  that  which  was  diffused 
by  the  church  throughout  the  Byzantine  Empire,  and 
which  gradually,  with  the  closer  union  of  individual 
churches,  acquired  a  kind  of  public  unity.  The  Asi- 
atic and  Byzantine  embraced  the  more  recent  docu- 
ments ;  the  Alexandrian  and  Latin  the  more  ancient. 

The  question  of  the  origin  of  these  classes  is  not 
settled  by  the  difference  of  the  several  countries 
through  which  the  text  was  propagated,  since  the 
codices  of  one  country  were  sometimes  conveyed  to 
another;  as  when  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  and  Athana- 
sius  of  Alexandria  were  commanded  by  Constantine 
and  Constans  to  send  to  the  Byzantines  copies  accu- 
rately and  elegantly  transcribed.  Along  with  the 
difference  of  countries  there  must  be  taken  into  the 
account  the  efforts  made  at  a  very  early  date  to  amend 
the  text.  Such  efforts,  Tischendorf  thought,  grew  out 
of  the  want  of  reverence  for  "  the  written  letter  "  on 
the  part  of  the  early  Christians.  It  is  to  be  especially 
observed  that  the  Byzantine  family  is  conspicuous  in 
the  great  body  of  more  recent  Greek  codices,  and  the 
Latin  in  the  Latin  and  Groeco-Latin  documents,  though 
with  a  great  variety  of  readings.  Of  the  Asiatic  and 
Alexandrian  the  fewest  documents  survive,  and  none 
Caution  de-  are  uncorrupted.  Great  caution  should  therefore  be 
a^f"^fn  Th  exercised  in  applying  the  distinction  of  classes  or  re- 
distinction  censions.  To  take  this  distinction  as  an  absolute  norm 
of  classes.  ^^  foundation,  is  rash  and  futile.  In  assigning  the 
first  place  to  the  Alexandrian  witnesses  we  reason  less 
from  the  theory  of  recensions  than  from  the  fact  that 


text. 


TISCHENDORF  125 

those  codices  which  go  under  that  name  are  almost  the 
oldest  of  all  surviving  witnesses. 

Thus,  according  to  Tischendorf,  the  value  of  any 
codex  is  derived,  not  from  its  class,  but  from  the  good- 
ness and  antiquity  of  the  text  which  the  codex  princi- 
pally follows.^ 

Tischendorf  laid  down  the  following  principles  for  Formal 
the  formation  of  his  text,  some  of  which  had  been,  xSn-"^"^ 
substantially,  propounded  by  Griesbach  and  others  :  —  dorf  s  prin- 

1.   The   text  is   only   to   be   sought  from   ancient  Ihefovm^- 
evidence,  and  especially  from  Greek  manuscripts,  but  tion  of  his 
without  neglecting  the   testimonies  of  Versions  and 
Fathers-     Thus  the  whole  conformation  of  the  text 

1  The  uncial  codices,  arranged  according  to  their  value,  are 
the  following :  — 

(A)  Text  of  the  most  ancient  form,  for  the  most  part  with 
an  Alexandrian  colouring,  but  with  many  variations. 

{B)  Text  later  in  form,  mostly  with  an  Asiatic  colouring. 

Gospels 

(A)  Of  the  first  rank  :  KABCDIIbLPQRT^b^XZA  (espe- 
cially in  Mark)  e^'^S. 

Of  the  second  rank:  F^N  0  W^^c  [W^e]  y  e^bef  j-^]. 

(B)  Of  the  first  rank,  nearer  to  A  :  E  K  M  r  A  n  6^. 

Of  the  second  rank :  F  G  H  S  U  V. 

When,  as  often  occurs,  EFGHKMSUV  agree,  they  are  desig- 
nated by  Tischendorf  as  unc^. 

Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles 

(A)  X  A  B  C  D  I  E  G  and  P  in  CathoUc  Epistles,  except  in  1 
Pet. 

(5)  H  K  L  [M],  and  P  in  Acts  and  1  Pet. 

Pauline  Epistles 

{A)  XABCHIOQ[R]DFGM[Ot']P. 
{B)   KLN. 

Apocaltpsb 
(^)  KACPB. 


126 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


should  proceed  from  evidences  themselves,  and  not 
from  what  is  called  the  received  edition.  The  sound- 
ness of  this  rule,  which  embodies  Lachmann's  funda- 
mental principle,  is  generally  conceded.  Its  practical 
working,  however,  strictly  on  Tischendorf's  basis, 
would  be  somewhat  embarrassed  by  the  wide  range 
which  he  gives  to  the  term  "Most  Ancient  Greek 
Manuscripts  "  ;  since,  under  that  term,  he  includes  the 
documents  from  the  fourth  to  about  the  ninth  century. 
Later  documents  of  that  period  would  be  likely  to 
exhibit  readings  resembling  those  of  modern  copies. 
Tischendorf,  however,  declares  that,  of  the  documents 
from  the  fourth  to  the  ninth  century,  the  authority  of 
the  older  ones  is  much  the  greater,  and  is  confirmed  by 
corroborating  testimonies  of  Versions  and  Fathers,  and 
not  to  be  rejected,  even  though  most  or  all  of  the 
more  modern  copies  read  differently. 

2.  A  reading  altogether  peculiar  to  one  or  another  an- 
cient document  is  suspicious,  as  also  is  any,  even  if  sup- 
ported by  a  class  of  documents  which  seems  to  show 
that  it  has  originated  in  the  revision  of  a  learned  man. 
He  says  that  especially  in  the  Gospels,  where  we  have 
several  uncial  manuscripts,  it  would  be  incautious  to 
receive  a  reading  into  the  text  on  the  authority  of  one 
manuscript,  unless  the  reading  were  in  some  measure 
corroborated.  On  this  Tregelles  justly  remarks  that 
^'it  seems  unlikely  that,  in  the  Gospels,  it  would  be 
needful  to  rely  on  but  one  manuscript,  unless,  in  such 
a  place,  many  of  the  leading  authorities  are  defec- 
tive, or  unless  the  passage  present  a  remarkable  dis- 
crepancy of  reading.  Tischendorf  would  apparently 
introduce  this  latter  limitation."  An  example  is 
furnished  in  Mark  2 :  22,  where  Tischendorf  reads 
6  oti/o?  aTToXXvTat  kol  ol  daKoc,  "the  wine  perislieth  and 
the  skins,"  for  the  received  reading,  6  oTvoq  cKXfirat  koI 
ot  aa-Kol  airokovvTaLf  "  the  wine  is  spilled  and  the  skins 


TISCHENDOBF  127 

perish."  The  former  reading  rests  on  the  authority 
of  B;  but  Tischendorf  woukl  refuse  to  adopt  it  on 
that  authority  alone.  It  is  also  the  reading  of  the 
Memphitic  Version,  and  added  to  these  witnesses  is 
the  probability  that  it  was  altered  in  order  to  conform 
it  to  the  reading  of  Matt.  9  :  17.  That,  originally, 
the  passage  in  Mark  was  written  differently  from  that 
in  Matthew,  in  accordance  with  the  difference  between 
Matthew's  fuller  and  Mark's  briefer  diction,  would 
seem  to  be  shown  by  the  differences  in  reading  of  the 
passage  in  Mark.  L  reads  6  olvos  iK^^urat  Kal  ol  aa-Kol : 
D  with  It.**,  6  otvos  Kal  aa-Kol  d-rroXovvTaL.  Thus,  Tischen- 
dorf  refuses  to  accept  his  reading  on  the  authority  of 
B  alone,  but  accepts  it  because  B  is  confirmed  by  a 
Version,  and  by  the  evidence  of  transcriptional  proba- 
bility. 

3.  Readings,  however  well  supported  by  evidence.  Copyists' 
are  to  be  reiected  when  it  appears  that  they  have  errors  to  be 

J   J  n  n  -Irri,  -^    rejected  de- 

proceeded  irom  errors  oi  copyists.  Here,  however,  it  spite  sup- 
is  to  be  carefully  considered  whether  an  apparent  P^^^* 
transcriptional  error  is  not  set  aside  by  the  weight  of 
diplomatic  evidence.  Thus,  Tischendorf  holds  that 
the  reading  in  Matt.  25 :  16  should  be  iTroL-qa-ev 
"made,"  instead  of  lidp^-qa-ev  "gained";  but  both 
Tregelles  and  Westcott  and  Hort  retain  iKepS-qa-ev  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  sustained  by  the  best  and  most 
ancient  manuscripts ;  and  Tischendorf  himself  admits 
that  it  is  often  doubtful  whether  an  apparent  tran- 
scriptional error  is  really  such. 

4.  In  parallel  passages,  whether  of  the  New  or  Old  In  parallel 
Testament,  especially  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  those  unifjmnon- 
testimonies  are  to  be  preferred  in  which  there  is  not  |sed  read- 
precise  accordance  of  such  parallel  passages,  unless  Lbfe.^^^  ^^" 
there  are  important   reasons   to  the  contrary.      The 
tendency  of  copyists  to  bring  the  parallel  passages  of 
different  Gospels  into  accord  has  already  been  noticed. 


128  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

It  "was  no  doubt  fostered  by  the  use  of  Harmonies, 
such  as  Tatian's. 

5.  In  discrepant  readings,  that  reading  should  be 
preferred  which  may  have  given  occasion  to  the  rest, 
or  which  appears  to  comprise  the  elements  of  the 
others.  The  principle  is  sound,  but  its  application  is 
not  easy  in  all  cases,  and  is  likely  to  depend  upon  the 
feeling  of  the  individual  critic.  The  same  considera- 
tion will  come  into  play  as  in  Rule  3,  viz.  whether 
the  apparent  probability  is  not  offset  or  overborne  by 
external  testimony. 

6.  Those  readings  must  be  maintained  which  accord 
with  New  Testament  Greek,  or  with  the  peculiar  style 

to  be  chosen,  of  each  individual  writer.  This  may  be  admitted  so 
far  as  concerns  the  peculiar  style  of  each  writer ;  but 
the  rule  was  evidently  framed  on  the  assumption 
that  Biblical  Greek  was  an  independent  language, 
an  assumption  which  is  strongly  challenged  by  some 
modern  New  Testament  scholars.  Until  that  discus- 
sion is  settled,  it  is  premature  to  pronounce  upon  the 
validity  of  Tischendorf's  rule.' 

The  question  of  the  original  New  Testament  text, 
and  that  of  the  methods  by  which  it  is  to  be  finally 
determined,  are  both  too  far  from  absolute  settlement 
to  warrant  a  final  judgment  as  to  the  relative  value  of 
Tischendorf's  results.  He  himself  incurred  the  charge 
of  vacillation  because  he  was  open-eyed  to  all  new 
forms  of  evidence,  and  ready  to  modify  or  to  abandon 
former  conclusions  under  the  influence  of  new  light. 

1  See  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  Sources  of  Neio  Testament  Greeks 
Edinburgh,  1895.  G.  A.  Deissmann,  Die  sprachliche  Erforschung 
der  griechischen  Bibel,  ihr  gegenwdrtiger  Stand  und  ihre  Aufga- 
ben,  Giessen,  1898.  Id.,  Beitrdge  zur  Sprachgeschichte  der 
griechischen  Bibel,  in  Bibelstudien,  Marburg,  1895.  Id., 
Neue  Bibelstudien.  Sprachgeschichtliche  Beitrdge,  zumeist  aus 
den  Papyri  und  Inschriften,  zur  Erkldrung  des  Neuen  Testa- 
ments, Marburg,  1897. 


TISCHENBOBF  129 

The  real  value  of  Codex  J<  and  his  enthusiastic  delight 
in  its  discovery  may  have  led  him  sometimes  to  attach 
undue  weight  to  its  testimony.  In  any  case,  he  gave 
a  vast  and  permanent  impulse  to  the  science  of  textual 
criticism,  and  advanced  it  far  beyond  the  lines  which 
it  had  previously  reached.  He  did  not  solve  the 
problem  presented  by  variations  between  the  most 
ancient  texts,  but  his  accumulations  of  new  manu- 
script evidence,  from  personal  inspection,  were  enor- 
mous. His  collations  were  generally  accurate,  and  his 
publications  of  the  texts  of  the  chief  ancient  witnesses 
were  invaluable.  He  was  a  formidable  champion  of 
the  principle  that  the  original  text  is  to  be  determined 
primarily  on  the  basis  of  ancient  testimony.  Until 
some  new  and  greater  textual  prophet  shall  arise,  he 
will  continue  to  divide  the  honors  with  Tregelles  and 
Westcott  and  Hort,  neither  of  whom  have  rendered  his 
published  results  unnecessary ;  and  over  a  large  area 
of  the  New  Testament  text  the  conclusions  of  these 
leaders  coincide.^ 

1  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  3-6,  7-22, 193-197.  Scrive- 
ner, Introduction,  I,  115-117,  122,  155  f.,  159,  163;  II,  235- 
238,  282  ;  also  I,  Index  II.  P.  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Greek 
Testament  and  English  Version,  3d  ed.,  103-111,  257-262. 
Tregelles,  Printed  Text,  116-129.  0.  von  Gebhardt,  article 
"Bibeltext,"  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopddie.  J.  E.  Volbed- 
ing,  Constantine  Tischendorf  in  seiner  funfundzwanzigjdhri- 
gen  schriftstellerischen  Wirksamkeit,  Leipzig,  1862.  Ezra 
Abbot,  Unitarian  Review,  March,  1875.  Carl  Bertheau,  article 
*' Tischendorf,"  in  Herzog's  Beal-Encyklopddie. 

K 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THIRD  PERIOD    (1830-81).     TREGELLES 

Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  who  ranks  as  one 
of  the  three  great  modern  authorities  on  the  New 
Testament  text,  was  born  and  died  at  nearly  the  same 
times  as  Tischendorf.  His  Prospectus  of  a  Critical 
Edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  now  in  prejmra- 
tion,  was  appended  to  his  Book  of  Revelation  Trans- 
lated from  the  Ancient  Greek  Text,  1844.  In  1845 
he  went  to  Rome,  with  the  special  object  of  collating 
the  Codex  Vaticanus.  This  document  had  been  already- 
collated  for  Bentley  by  Mico  (1799),  partially  by  Birch, 
and  also  by  Bartolocci  (1669).  Bartolocci's  collation 
was  not  published.  Tregelles  had  compared  the  two 
others,  and  had  found  that  they  differed  in  nearly  two 
thousand  places,  and  that  many  of  the  discrepancies 
were  readings  noticed  by  one  and  not  by  the  other. 
He  went  to  Rome,  and  during  the  five  months  of  his 
Fruitless  at-  stay  endeavoured  to  obtain  permission  to  collate  the 
collate  B.  manuscript  accurately,  or  at  least  to  examine  it  in 
the  places  where  Birch  and  Bentley  differed  as  to  the 
readings;  but  all  his  efforts  were  in  vain.  He  often 
saw  the  manuscript,  but  was  hindered  from  transcribing 
any  of  its  readings.  He,  however,  read  many  passages, 
and  afterward  noted  down  several  important  readings. 
During  that  visit,  however,  and  two  subsequent  ones 
to  the  Continent,  he  examined  all  the  manuscripts  that 
he  could  find  in  different  libraries,  at  Florence,  Modena, 
Venice,  Munich,  Basle,  Paris  (where  he  transcribed 
Bartolocci's  collation  of  B),  Hamburg,  Berlin,  Leipzig, 
130 


TREGELLES  131 

and  Dresden.     In  1854  appeared  his  Account  of  the  Account  0/ 
Printed   Text  of  the  New   Testament,  intended  as  an   tLl^'^^^^^ 
exposition  of  his  critical  principles ;    and  in  1856  his  Introduc- 
Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testa-    Textual  Cn- 
ment,   contributed   to   the   tenth   edition   of    Home's   t{cism  of 
Introduction.      In  1857  the  first   part   of   his  Greek   Testament. 
Testament,  containing  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  His  Greek 
Mark,   was    published,   under   the    title,    TJie   Greek  Testament. 
Testament  edited  from   Ancient  Authorities,  with  the 
Latin  Version  of  Jerome  from  the   Codex  Amiatinus. 
The  second  part,  containing  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and 
John,  followed  in  1861,  the  Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles 
appeared  in  1865,  and  the  Pauline  Epistles,  down  to 
2  Thessalonians,  in  1869.     He  was  disabled  by  a  para- 
lytic stroke  in  1870 ;  but  the  remaining  Epistles  were 
published  in  that  year  as  he  had  prepared  them.     The 
Apocalypse,  edited  so  far  as  possible,  from  his  papers, 
by  two  of  his  friends,  was  issued  in  1872,  with  a  text 
differing  in  over  two  hundred  places  from  his  edition 
of  1814. 

His  New  Testament  contained  a  large  array  of 
Greek  and  Syriac  readings,  mostly  the  results  of  his 
own  collations;  besides  readings  of  the  Egyptian, 
Ethiopic,  and  Armenian  Versions,  of  the  Greek 
Fathers  down  to  Eusebius,  and  of  the  Latin  Fathers, 
Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Hilary,  Lucifer  of  Cagliari,  and 
Primasius.  The  Gospels  were  edited  before  the  dis- 
covery of  the  Sinaitic  Codex,  and  before  Tischendorf's 
later  studies  on  B.  The  lack  of  these  two  sources  was 
the  cause  of  many  of  his  disagreements  with  Tischen- 
dorf's readings.^ 

Tregelles's  collations  of  manuscripts  were  very  ex- 
tensive, and  he  devoted  great  attention  to  the  Fathers. 

1  Gregory's  Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf,  287-334,  gives  a 
collation  of  the  texts  of  Tregelles  and  Westcott  and  Hort,  with 
that  of  Tischendorf's  eighth  Critica  Major. 


132 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Founder  of 
"Compara- 
tive Criti- 
cism." 


Critical 
principles. 


His  critical  work  was  distinguished  by  scrupulous 
exactness.  Scrivener  says  that  where  Tischendorf 
and  Tregelles  diifer  in  their  collations,  Tregelles  is 
seldom  in  the  wrong.  In  many  cases  he  compared 
his  own  collations  with  Tischendorf  s  and  settled  the 
differences  by  a  reexamination  of  the  manuscript. 

Tregelles  introduced  the  method  which  he  styled 
"Comparative  Criticism,"  that  is,  the  process  which 
seeks  to  determine  the  comparative  value  and  to  trace 
the  mutual  relations  of  authorities  of  every  kind  upon 
which  the  original  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  based. 
He  ignored  the  Received  Text  and  most  of  the  cur- 
sives, and  based  his  text  on  the  oldest  uncials,  the 
Versions  down  to  the  seventh  century,  and  the  early 
Fathers.  His  range  of  ancient  authorities  was  larger 
than  Lachmann's.  He  denied  that  exactly  defined 
families  of  documents  could  be  distinguished,  while 
admitting  that  two  general  classes  of  texts  might  be 
recognised,  —  Alexandrian  and  Constantinopolitan, — 
although  some  codices  might  occasionally  be  distin- 
guished from  the  Alexandrian  as  "  Western." 

His  critical  principles  are  stated  at  length  in  his 
"  Printed  Text."  He  lays  down  the  following  state- 
ments: Readings  whose  antiquity  is  proved  apart 
from  manuscripts  are  found  in  repeated  instances  in 
a  few  of  the  extant  copies.  These  few,  the  text  of 
which  is  thus  proved  to  be  ancient,  include  some,  and 
often  several,  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  extant.  In 
some  cases  the  attested  ancient  reading  is  found  in 
but  one  or  two  manuscripts,  but  those  of  the  most  an- 
cient class.  And,  as  certain  manuscripts  are  found, 
by  a  process  of  inductive  proof,  to  contain  an  ancient 
text,  their  character  as  witnesses  must  be  considered 
to  be  so  established  that,  in  other  places,  their  testi- 
mony deserves  peculiar  weight.  As  to  Versions,  the 
concurrence  of  two  Versions  in  a  definite  reading  ex- 


TREGELLES  1S3 

eludes  the  supposition  that  the  reading  is  merely  an 
accident  of  transcription  or  translation ;  and  that  the 
accordance  with  them  of  certain  manuscripts  is  like- 
wise the  result  of  fortuitous  circumstances  or  of  arbi- 
trary alteration.  When  the  number  of  according 
Versions  is  multiplied,  the  balance  of  probabilities  is 
highly  convincing.  As  to  patristic  citations,  although 
often  modernised  to  suit  the  Greek  text  to  which  a 
copyist  was  accustomed,  yet  when  the  reading  is  such 
that  it  could  not  be  altered  without  changing  the 
whole  texture  of  their  remarks,  or  when  they  are  so 
express  in  their  testimony  that  such  a  reading  is  that 
found  in  such  a  place,  we  need  not  doubt  that  it  was 
so  in  their  copies;  and  so,  too,  if  we  find  that  the 
reading  of  early  Fathers  agrees  with  other  early 
testimonies  in  opposition  to  those  which  are  later. 

The  antiquity  of  documents  is  to  be  preferred  to  Insists  on 
their  number  as  a  basis  of  testimony.  The  only  proof  testhnony. 
that  a  reading  is  ancient  is  that  it  is  found  in  some 
ancient  document.  The  selection  of  authorities  must 
be  based  upon  proof  that  the  witnesses  are  worthy  of 
confidence.  Ancient  manuscripts,  the  older  Versions, 
and  such  early  citations  as  have  come  down  to  us  in  a 
trustworthy  form,  are  the  only  certain  vouchers  that 
any  reading  is  ancient.  Besides  the  manuscripts  which 
are  actually  the  oldest,  we  may  use  as  valuable  auxilia- 
ries those  whose  general  text  accords  with  them,  be- 
cause the  character  of  such  manuscripts  is  shown  by 
their  general  agreement  with  the  oldest,  and  because 
it  is  also  proved  by  the  same  criteria  of  accordance 
with  the  best  early  Versions  and  citations.  It  cannot 
be  objected  that  we  do  not  know  by  whom  the  ancient 
copies  were  written.  This  would  apply  equally  to  a 
vast  number  of  the  modern  codices.  The  so-called 
uniform  text  of  the  later  manuscripts  is  not  an  evi- 
dence in  its  favour,  and  does  not  show  that  the  variar 


134  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

tions  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  from  one  another  and 
from  the  more  recent  prove  the  oldest  to  be  unreliable. 
The  later  Greek  manuscripts  are  not  so  uniform  in 
their  text  as  are  the  later  Latin ;  yet  the  recent  manu- 
scripts of  the  Vulgate  agree  in  perhaps  two  thousand 
readings,  differing  from  what  Jerome  could  have  given, 
and  also  from  the  very  few  ancient  copies  which  have 
been  transmitted.  Thus  the  Latin  manuscripts  supply 
an  argument  from  analogy.  The  mass  of  recent  copies 
contain  a  text  notoriously  and  demonstrably  incorrect ; 
the  few  oldest  manuscripts  supply  the  means  of  emen- 
dation, and  these  few  must  be  followed  if  we  think  of 
giving  the  genuine  text  of  Jerome's  Version.  Besides 
all  this,  it  is  not  strictly  true  that  these  more  modern 
copies  contain  a  uniform  text.  The  difficulty  of  advo- 
cating the  mass  of  modern  copies  is  great,  not  only 
because  of  their  internal  variations,  but  also  because 
the  witnesses  stand  opposed  to  every  one  of  the  most 
ancient  copies,  to  the  ancient  Versions  as  a  class,  and 
to  every  Christian  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries  of 
whom  we  have  any  considerable  remains. 
Proposals  in  In  his  New  Testament  Tregelles  proposes :  (1)  To 
Testament,  gi^©  ^^^  ^^^^  <^^  t^®  authority  of  the  oldest  manuscripts 
and  Versions,  and  with  the  aid  of  the  earlier  citations, 
so  as  to  present,  as  far  as  possible,  the  text  commonly 
received  in  the  fourth  century,  always  stating  what 
authorities  support,  and  what  oppose,  the  text  given. 
(2)  In  cases  in  which  we  have  certain  proofs  which 
carry  us  still  nearer  to  the  apostolic  age,  to  use  the 
data  so  afforded.  (3)  In  cases  in  which  the  oldest  docu- 
ments agree  in  certain  undoubted  transcriptional  error, 
to  state  the  reading  so  supported,  but  not  to  follow  it, 
and  to  give  the  grounds  on  which  another  reading  is 
preferred.  (4)  In  matters  altogether  doubtful,  to  state 
distinctly  the  conflicting  evidence,  and  thus  to  approxi- 
mate toward  a  true  text.    (5)  To  give  the  various  read- 


TREGELLES 


135 


andTischen- 
dorf  com- 
pared. 


ings  of  all  the  uncial  manuscripts  and  ancient  Versions 
very  correctly,  so  that  it  may  be  clearly  seen  what 
readings  possess  any  ancient  authority  whatever.  To 
these  add  the  more  important  citations  of  the  earlier 
writers  to  Eusebius  inclusive.  The  places  are  also  to 
be  indicated  in  which  the  common  text  departs  from 
the  ancient  readings. 

As  compared  with  Tischendorf,  Tregelles  was  more  Tregelles 
accurate  in  the  use  of  his  material,  without  being  pos- 
sessed of  Tischendorf's  resources.  He  was  less  rest- 
less than  Tischendorf,  and  slower  in  making  public  the 
results  of  his  labours,  so  that  the  different  portions  of 
his  work  do  not  exhibit  the  same  changes  of  opinion 
which  characterise  Tischendorf.  Both  added  im- 
mensely to  the  accumulations  of  evidence. 

In  the  inspection  of  Codex  Basilianus  in  the  Vatican 
(B  of  the  Apocalypse),  one  of  the  three  ancient  copies 
which  contain  that  book,  he  satisfied  himself  that  the 
manuscript  contained  it  entire,  it  having  been  pre- 
viously supposed,  owing  to  imperfect  collation,  that  it 
had  many  gaps.  At  Florence,  he  collated  the  New 
Testament  portion  of  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  a  most  im- 
portant manuscript  of  the  Latin  translation  of  Jerome, 
belonging  to  the  sixth  century.  The  previous  partial 
collation  by  Fleck  was  defective  and  inaccurate.  At 
Modena  he  made  what  was  virtually  the  first  collation 
of  Codex  Mutinensis  of  the  Acts  (ninth  century).  He 
was  the  first  to  collate  Codex  Nanii,  V  of  the  Gospels 
(tenth  century),  in  the  library  of  St.  Mark  at  Venice. 
At  Munich  he  collated  Codex  Monacensis,  X  of  the 
Gospels  (tenth  century).  This  is  an  uncial  manuscript 
with  ancient  readings,  but  with  a  commentary  in  cur- 
sive characters  interspersed.  Its  collation  was,  in 
parts,  exceedingly  difficult,  owing  to  the  fading  of  the 
ink,  and  the  difficulty  was  aggravated  by  Tregelles's 
bad  eyes.     The  order  of  the  Gospels  is  the  reverse  of 


Tregelles's 
labours  in 
collation. 


136  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

tliat  in  our  Bibles,  but  before  the  beginning  of  John 
were  two  injured  leaves,  apparently  overlooked  by 
Tischendorf,  and  containing  fragments  of  Matt.  6  : 
3-10.  The  important  Codex  Colbertinus,  known  as 
the  Queen  of  the  Cursives,  and  containing  the  Gospels, 
Acts,  Catholic  Epistles  and  Epistles  of  Paul,  had  been 
collated  imperfectly  by  Larroque  and  Griesbach,  and 
possibly  by  Scholz.  It  was  reserved  for  Tregelles  to 
do  the  work  faithfully.  He  says,  "  I  have  had  some 
experience  in  the  collation  of  manuscripts,  but  none 
has  ever  been  so  wearisome  to  my  eyes,  and  exhaustive 
of  every  faculty  of  attention,  as  this  was."  The  leaves 
had  been  injured  by  damp,  so  that  a  part  of  the  vellum 
was  utterly  destroyed.  In  the  book  of  Acts  the  leaves 
were  so  firmly  stuck  together  that,  when  they  were 
separated,  the  ink  adhered  rather  to  the  opposite  page 
than  to  its  own,  so  that,  in  many  leaves,  the  manu- 
script could  only  be  read  by  observing  how  the  ink  had 
set  off,  and  thus  reading  the  Greek  words  backward. 
He  collated,  in  all,  twenty -nine  codices,  besides  editing 
Codex  Zacynthius,  H,  of  Luke  (eighth  century),  and  0, 
a  fragment  of  eight  leaves  (ninth  century),  containing 
about  thirteen  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  The 
eight  leaves  of  this  manuscript  were  used  for  binding 
a  copy  of  Chrysostom's  Homilies  which  was  brought 
from  Mt.  Athos  to  Moscow,  where  the  leaves  were  dis- 
covered by  Matthaei. 
Von  Geb-  Of  Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  Dr.  0.  von  Gebhardt 

xtsdiendorf  ^^^^  '  "  -^0^^^  were  in  like  measure  equipped  with  the 
and  Trd-  requisite  qualities,  —  sharp-sightedness  and  an  accuracy 
^®  ®^'  that  gave  heed  to  the  smallest  particulars,  and  both, 

with  their  whole  soul,  fixed  their  eyes  upon  the  goal 
set  before  them,  and  strove  with  like  zeal  to  reach  it. 
That  it  was  not  their  lot  to  attain  equal  success,  lay  in 
the  fact  that  Tischendorf  was  much  more  enterprising, 
more  keen-eyed  for  new  discoveries,  and   far   better 


TREGELLES  137 

favoured  by  fortune.  But  the  success  whicli  each  of 
them  reached,  at  the  same  time,  is  so  great  that  they 
leave  far  behind  them  everything  that  had  been  hitherto 
done  in  this  realm.  In  the  toilsome  work  of  collating 
manuscripts  and  deciphering  palimpsests,  both  Tischen- 
dorf  and  Tregelles  spent  many  years  of  their  lives,  being 
thoroughly  persuaded  that  the  restoration  of  the  New 
Testament  text  could  be  striven  for  with  success  only 
upon  the  basis  of  a  diplomatically  accurate  investiga- 
tion of  the  oldest  documents.  But  while  it  was  Tisch- 
endorf's  peculiarity  to  publish  in  rapid  succession  the 
swiftly  ripened  fruits  of  his  restless  activity,  and  so  to 
permit  liis  last  result  to  come  into  existence,  so  to 
speak,  before  the  eyes  of  the  public,  Tregelles  loved 
to  fix  his  full  energy  undisturbed  upon  the  attainment 
of  the  one  great  aim,  and  to  come  into  publicity  only 
with  the  completest  which  he  had  to  offer.  So  we  see 
Tischendorf  editing  the  New  Testament  twenty  times 
within  the  space  of  thirty  years,  not  to  mention  his 
other  numerous  publications,  while  Tregelles  did  not 
believe  that  he  could  venture  on  the  publication  of  the 
only  edition  of  the  New  Testament  which  we  possess 
from  him,  until  after  twenty  years'  preparation."  ^ 

Even  Burgon,  the  bitter  enemy  of  the  principles  of  Testimony 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  says :  "  It  is  certain  that  by  "^^  ^^i^gon. 
the  conscientious  diligence  with  which  those  distin- 
guished scholars  have  respectively  laboured,  they  have 
erected  monuments  of  their  learning  and  ability  which 
will  endure  forever.  Their  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment will  not  be  superseded  by  any  new  discoveries,  by 
any  future  advances  in  the  science  of  textual  criticism. 
The  manuscripts  which  they  have  edited  will  remain 
among  the  most  precious  materials  for  future  study."  ^ 


1  Article  "Bibeltext,"  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopddie. 

2  The  Last  Twelve  Verses  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark, 


138 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Alford's 

Greek 

Testament. 


Protests 
against  rev- 
erence for 
the  Textus 
Receptus. 


Alford.  —  Henry  Alf ord,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  issued 
the  first  volume  of  his  Greek  Testament  in  1849.  The 
fourth  and  final  volume  appeared  in  January,  1861. 
The  several  volumes  passed  through  numerous  edi- 
tions. Seven  of  the  first  two  volumes,  and  five  of  the 
third  and  fourth,  were  published.  In  the  fifth  edition 
he  nearly  rewrote  the  text  and  digest  of  readings, 
chiefly  on  the  basis  of  the  labours  of  Tischendorf  and 
Tregelles.  In  the  sixth  he  incorporated  the  readings 
of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus.  He  added  another  protest 
against  the  irrational  reverence  for  the  Textus  Ee- 
ceptus  as  standing  in  the  way  of  all  chance  of  dis- 
covering "the  genuine  word  of  God,"  and  advocated  a 
return  to  the  evidence  of  the  most  ancient  witnesses 
as  against  the  imposing  array  of  later  manuscripts. 
He  says :  "  Experience  has  brought  about  some  changes 
in  my  convictions  with  regard  to  the  application  of 
canons  of  subjective  criticism  to  the  consensus  of 
ancient  manuscripts.  In  proportion  as  I  have  been 
led  severely  to  examine  how  far  we  can  safely  depend 
on  such  subjective  considerations,  I  confess  that  the 
limits  of  their  applicability  have  become  narrowed. 
In  very  many  cases  they  may  be  made  to  tell  with 
equal  force  either  way."  He  drew  his  apparatus 
mostly  from  the  works  of  others,  but  himself  com- 
pared B  in  selected  passages,  and  contributed  some 
new  readings  from  other  sources.  His  text  appears 
to  be  nearer  to  that  of  Tregelles  than  to  that  of 
Tischendorf. 

Preface,  viii,  ix.  See  Tischendorf,  Prolegomena,  269-272.  Tre- 
gelles, Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament. 
Carl Bertheau,  article  "Tregelles,"  in  Herzog's  Beal-Encyklo- 
pdclie.  O.  von  Gebhardt,  article  "  Bibeltext,"  in  Herzog's  Beat- 
Encyklopddie.  Scrivener,  Introduction,  II,  238-241.  F.  J.  A. 
Hort,  Journal  of  Philology,  March,  1858.  T.  H.  Home,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, 10th  ed.,  IV,  1866;  11th  ed.,  1863. 


CHAPTEE  XV 

THIRD  PERIOD  (1830-81).     REACTION  TOWARD  THE 
TEXTUS  RECEPTUS.     SCRIVENER  AND  BURGON 

Under  the  influence  of  Tregelles,  many  English 
scholars  returned  to  the  principles  of  Bentley.  Dr. 
Gregory  naively  remarks,  at  this  point,  "Non  tamen 
desunt  viri  docti  quibus  hsec  novitas  vix  placeat." 
Tregelles  himself  feelingly  alludes  to  this.  "It  is 
to  be  lamented  that  the  feeling  thus  exists,  even  on 
the  part  of  some  scholars,  that  recurrence  to  the  most 
ancient  sources  for  the  text  of  Scripture  deserves  to  be 
so  condemned  and  deprecated  that  they  hold  up  critics 
(conscientious  men  it  may  be)  who  press  the  impor- 
tance of  ancient  testimony,  as  reckless  innovators,  and 
they  thus  lead  an  unjudging  crowd  to  condemn  them 
and  their  labours."  Tregelles  found  himself  in  conflict 
with  the  leading  representative  of  the  conservative 
school  of  Textual  Criticism  in  England,  Dr.  Frederick  Dr.  Scrive- 
Henry  Ambrose  Scrivener,  Prebendary  of  Exeter  and  orthlcon- 
Vicar  of  Hendon.  Dr.  Scrivener's  attitude  is  set  forth  servatiye 
in  his  own  words  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Intro-  in  England. 
duction,  repeated  in  the  fourth  and  last  edition. 
"  All  that  can  be  inferred  from  searching  into  the 
history  of  the  sacred  text  amounts  to  no  more  than 
this :  that  extensive  variations,  arising  no  doubt  from 
the  wide  circulation  of  the  New  Testament  in  different 
regions  and  among  nations  of  diverse  languages,  sub- 
sisted from  the  earliest  period  to  which  our  records 
extend.  Beyond  this  point  our  investigations  cannot 
139 


140  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

be  carried  without  indulging  in  pleasant  speculations, 
which  may  amuse  the  fancy  but  cannot  inform  the 
sober  judgment." 

Dr.  Scrivener,  in  1860,  edited  Stephen's  text  of 
1550,  adding  the  readings  of  the  Elzevirs,  Beza,  Lach- 
mann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles.  Six  editions  are 
noted  by  Dr.  Gregory,  the  latest  in  1877.  In  1881 
appeared  The  New  Testainent  in  the  Original  Greek 
according  to  the  Text  followed  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion {T.  R.  Beza,  1598),  together  ivith  the  Variations 
adopted  in  the  Revised  Version.  An  appendix  gives 
a  list  of  the  passages  in  which  the  Authorised  Version 
departs  from  Beza's  text  and  agrees  with  certain 
earlier  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament.  An  impor- 
tant contribution  to  the  study  of  Textual  Criticism 
was  his  Plaiyi  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,  1861.  The  fourth  edition,  revised, 
and  enlarged  to  two  volumes,  a]Dpeared  in  1894,  edited 
by  the  Eev.  Edward  Miller,  an  earnest  supporter  of 
the  conservative  school.  The  list  of  manuscripts  has 
been  increased  to  3791,  and  most  of  the  accounts  of 
ancient  Versions  have  been  rewritten  by  eminent  spe- 
cialists. Notwithstanding  its  extremely  conservative 
character,  the  work  is  valuable.  Dr.  Scrivener  was 
possessed  of  large  learning  on  textual  questions,  but 
fought  every  inch  of  the  ground  yielded  by  the  Re- 
ceived Text.  His  experience  led  him  gradually  to 
modify  his  views  on  some  points,  and  to  make  some 
concessions.  At  the  time  of  his  death  he  was  moving 
in  the  direction  of  the  substitution  of  the  older,  uncial 
text  for  that  of  the  Textus  Receptus.  He  gave  up 
1  John  5:7,  8,  and  decided  for  o?  against  6e.o^  in 
1  Timothy  3  :  16.  The  movement,  however,  was  slow 
and  hesitating.  In  his  last  edition  of  Stephen's  text 
(1887)  he  characterised  Westcott  and  Hort's  edition 
as  "splendidum  peccatum,  non  Kr^/xa  cs  act." 


SCRIVENER  AND  BURGON  141 

With  Dean  Burgon  he  stood  for  the  position  that 
all  available  authorities,  and  not  the  most  ancient 
only,  should  be  considered  in  the  settlement  of  the 
text,  and  earnestly  combated  the  tendency  to  rely  too 
exclusively  on  the  testimony  of  i<  and  B.  He  was, 
however,  more  moderate  than  Burgon,  who  pronounced  Opinion  of 
^<  and  B  to  be  the  most  corrupt  of  manuscripts,  o  ®^  °. 
Scrivener  says :  "  We  accord  to  Codex  B  at  least  as 
much  weight  as  to  any  single  document  in  existence ;  " 
and  again,  "  We  have  no  wish  to  dissemble  the  great 
value  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  which,  in  common  with 
our  opponents,  we  regard  as  the  most  weighty  single 
authority  that  we  possess."  He  also  differed  with 
Burgon  on  1  Tim.  3  :  16.  In  the  last  edition  of  the 
Introduction  his  discussion  of  principles  is  summed 
up  in  four  practical  rules :  (1)  That  the  true  readings  Critical 
of  the  Greek  New  Testament  cannot  safely  be  derived  ^^j^m^d  up. 
from  any  one  set  of  authorities,  whether  manuscripts. 
Versions,  or  Fathers,  but  ought  to  be  the  result  of  a 
patient  comparison  and  careful  estimate  of  the  evi- 
dence supplied  by  them  all.  (2)  That  where  there  is 
a  real  agreement  between  all  documents  containing  the 
Gospels  up  to  the  sixth  century,  and  in  the  other  parts 
of  the  New  Testament  up  to  the  ninth,  the  testimony 
of  later  manuscripts  and  Versions,  though  not  to  be 
rejected  unheard,  must  be  regarded  with  great  suspi- 
cion, and  unless  upheld  by  strong  internal  evidence, 
can  hardly  be  adopted.  (3)  That  where  the  more 
ancient  documents  are  at  variance  with  each  other, 
the  later  uncial  and  cursive  copies,  especially  those  of 
approved  merit,  are  of  real  importance  as  being  the 
surviving  representatives  of  other  codices,  very  prob- 
ably as  early,  perhaps  even  earlier,  than  any  now 
extant.  (4)  That  in  weighing  conflicting  evidence  we 
must  assign  the  highest  value,  not  to  those  readings 
which  are  attested  by  the  greatest  number  of  wit- 


142 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


nesses,  but  to  those  which  come  to  us  from  several 
remote  and  independent  sources,  and  which  bear  the 
least  likeness  to  each  other  in  respect  to  genius  and 
general  character. 

He  admits  that  the  principle  of  grouping  is  sound, 
but  with  certain  reservations.  A  full  statement  of  his 
opinions  on  the  late  views  of  comparative  criticism  is 
given  in  the  Introduction,  II,  X. 

Burgon.  — John  W.  Burgon,  Dean  of  Chichester,  was 
the  friend  and  coadjutor  of  Scrivener.  He  is  known 
principally  by  his  elaborate  defence  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark's  Gospel,  and  by  his 
savage  attack  on  the  Revised  Version.  He  was  a 
learned  scholar  and  an  acute  critic,  and  did  much  work 
in  inspecting  and  collating  manuscripts,  especially  cur- 
sives, in  France  and  Italy.  Much  of  his  work  was  pub- 
lished in  The  Guardian,  and  is  not  easily  accessible. 
"  Burgon's  work  is  dominated  by  the  conviction  that 
every  word  of  the  Scriptures  was  dictated  by  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  it  is  inconceivable 
that  the  Author  of  such  a  gift  would  allow  it  to  become 
unavailing,  and  would  not  providentially  interfere  to 
guard  it  from  being  corrupted  or  lost ;  that  we  may 
therefore  rightly  believe  that  He  guided  His  church 
through  the  course  of  ages  to  eliminate  the  errors 
which  the  frailty  of  man  had  introduced,  and  conse- 
quently that  the  text  which  has  been  used  by  the 
church  for  centuries  must  be  accepted  as  at  least  sub- 
stantially correct."  ^  Testing  the  value  of  the  ancient 
manuscripts  by  comparison  with  the  Textus  Receptus, 
he  stated  his  conclusion  as  follows :  "  By  far  the  most 
depraved  text  is  that  exhibited  by  Codex  D ;  next  to 
D  the  most  untrustworthy  codex  is  i< ;  next  in  impur- 
ity comes  B  ;  then  the  fragmentary  Codex  C  ;  our  own 

1  Dr.  Salmon,  Some  Thoughts  on  the  Textual  Criticism  of 
$he  New  Testament. 


SCRIVENER  AND  BURGON  143 

A  being  beyond  all  doubt  disfigured  by  the  fewest 
blemishes  of  any."  According  'o  Burgon,  the  antiq- 
uity of  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  is  due  to  their 
badness.  They  were  known  to  be  so  bad  that  they 
were  little  used,  and  consequently  remained  untouched, 
and  therefore  have  survived  when  better  manuscripts 
have  perished.^ 

Green,    Kelly,    McClellan,    Abbot,    Ward,    Tyler.  — 
Thomas  Sheldon  Green,  of  Cambridge,  is  known  by  Thomas 
A  Course  of  Developed  Criticism  on  Passages  of  the  New  Qreen^^ 
Testament,  materially  affected  by  Various  Readings,  Lon- 
don, 1856 ;   The  Twofold  New  Testament,  being  a  New 
Translation  accompanying  a  newly  formed  Text,  London, 
1865 ;  A  Critical  Appendix  to  the  Twofold  New  Testa- 
ment,  London,  1871.     His  text  was  based  on  ancient 
witnesses,  and  agreed,   mainly,   with   Tregelles   and 
Tischendorf.     The  text  of  the  Apocalypse  was  edited 
by  William  Kelly,  The  Revelation  of  John  edited  in  William 
Greek  ivith  a  New  English  Version  and  a  Statement  of   j^^J^b^^ 
the  Cliief  Authorities  and  Various  Readings,  London,   McClellan. 
1860.     John  Brown  McClellan  published  The  Neiv  Tes- 
tament ...  a  New  Translation  .  .  .   from  a  critically 
revised  Greek  Text  .  .  .  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels, 
Notes,  and  Dissertations.    Only  the  first  volume,  contain- 
ing the  Four  Gospels,  appeared  (London,  1875).     Like 
Burgon,  he  condemned  X  and  B  as  the  worst  codices, 
and  regarded  internal  probability  as  the  surest  guide 
in  distinguishing  between  disputed  readings. 

The  lamented  Ezra  Abbot,  from  the  year  1856,  de- 
voted himself  to  the  New  Testament  text,  though  he 
made  no  attempt  to  edit  a  text.  The  results  of  his 
studies  appeared  in  numerous  articles  and  pamphlets, 
a  list  of  which  may  be  found  in  Gregory's  Prolegomena, 

1  Many  interesting  particulars  concerning  Burgon  will  be 
found  in  Dr.  Schaff' s  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  and 
English  Version,  3d  ed.,  84, 108, 119  ff.,  191,  293  ff.,  37^^,  426, 491. 


144  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

276.  Also  in  the  volume  Anglo-American  Bible  Revi- 
sion, New  York,  1879,  86-98,  in  21ie  New  Revision  and 
its  Study,  Philadelphia,  1881,  reprinted  in  part  in  B. 
H.  Kennedy's  Ely  Lectures  on  the  Revised  Version  of 
the  New  Testament,  London,  1882,  and  in  the  American 
edition  of  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  1866-70. 
He  was  one  of  the  American  committee  on  the  Revised 
Version,  and  was  associated  with  Dr.  C.  E.  Gregory  in 
the  preparation  of  the  Prolegomena  of  Tischendorf's 
eighth  edition.  Mention  should  also  be  made  of  the 
W.H.Ward,  treatise  of  Dr.  William  Hayes  Ward  of  New  York, 
A.  W.  Tyler.  Examination  of  the  Various  Readings  of  1  Timothy  3 : 
16,  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Andover,  1865,  and  of  two  Dis- 
sertations by  A.  Wellington  Tyler,  Our  Lord^s  Sacer- 
dotal Prayer,  John  17,  a  New  Critical  Text,  etc.,  and 
PauVs  Panegyric  of  Love,  a  New  Critical  Text,  etc., 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1871,  1873 ;  also  a  Critical  Appara- 
tus to  1  Cor.  12  :  27  — 13 :  13,  in  which  the  Patristic  wit- 
nesses are  carefully  collected. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THIRD    PERIOD  (1830-81).      WESTCOTT    AND    HORT, 
AND  THE  REVISERS'  TEXT  OF   1881 

In  1881  appeared  The  Neio  Testament  in  the  Origi-  Westcott 
nal  Greek,  two  volumes,  Cambridge  and  London,  by  New^?s\'a- 
Brooke  Foss  Westcott,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Peterborough  ment. 
and  Eegius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge,  and 
now  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  Fenton   John   Anthony 
Hort,  D.D.,  Hulsean  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cam- 
bridge.    The  first  volume  contained  the  text,  and  the 
second  the  exposition  of  the  textual  principles  and 
methods  of  the  editors,  with  notes  on  select  readings, 
orthography,  and  Old  Testament  quotations. 

This  work  was  announced  as  an  attempt  to  present 
exactly  the  original  words  of  the  Xew  Testament,  so 
far  as  they  can  now  be  determined  from  surviving  docu- 
ments, by  the  application  of  criticism  in  distinguishing 
and  setting  aside  those  readings  which  have  originated 
at  some  link  in  the  chain  of  transmission.  The  editors 
made  no  attempt  to  amass  new  material,  but  chose  to 
rely  upon  the  stores  accumulated  by  their  predecessors, 
confining  themselves  to  the  work  of  investigating  and 
editing  the  text  itself.  Their  fresh  evidence  was 
chiefly  patristic,  derived  in  a  great  measure  from  writ- 
ings or  fragments  of  writings  first  published  during  the 
last  hundred  years,  or  now  edited  from  better  manu- 
scripts than  were  formerly  known. 

Their  textual  principles  were  elaborated  in  their  The  Intro- 
Introduction,  prepared  by  Dr.  Hort,  a  technical  work  ^^'^^^o^- 
L  145 


146 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 


of  enormous  labour.  To  this  the  reader  must  be  re- 
ferred, since  it  is  impossible  adequately  to  exhibit  its 
contents  in  a  condensed  statement. 

The  aim,  then,  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  like  that  of 
Tischendorf  and  Tregelles,  is  to  make  the  closest  ap- 
proximation to  the  apostolic  text  itself,  thus  placing 
their  objective  point  back  of  Lachmann's,  which  was 
the  text  of  the  fourth  century.  The  facts  of  textual 
history,  they  assert,  as  attested  by  Versions  and  patris- 
tic quotations,  show  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 
speak  of  "  the  text  of  the  fourth  century,"  since  most 
of  the  important  variations  were  in  existence  before 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  and  many  can  be 
traced  back  to  the  second.  "Thus  the  text  of  this 
edition,  in  that  larger  sense  of  the  word  '  text '  which 
includes  the  margin,  rests  exclusively  on  direct  ancient 
authority,  and  its  primary  text  rests  exclusively  on 
direct  ancient  authority  of  the  highest  kind." 

The  proper  method  of  textual  genealogy  consists  in 
the  more  or  less  complete  recovery  of  the  texts  of  suc- 
cessive ancestors  by  analysis  and  comparison  of  the 
varying  texts  of  their  respective  descendants,  each 
ancestral  text  so  recovered  being  in  its  turn  used,  in 
conjunction  with  other  similar  texts,  for  the  recovery 
of  a  text  of  a  yet  earlier  common  ancestor. 

The  object,  in  brief,  is,  instead  of  simply  estimating 
authorities  in  the  order  of  their  age,  to  arrange  them 
into  groups  which  have  descended  from  common  an- 
cestors, and  determine  the  age  and  character  of  each 
group.  All  the  documents  representing  a  text  are 
examined  with  a  view  to  tracing  out  the  resemblances 
between  them,  and  so  classifying  them  in  groups, 
larger  or  smaller,  according  to  likeness.  This  process 
grows  out  of  the  principle  that  identity  of  reading  im- 
plies identity  of  origin.  Though  it  is  possible  that 
identity  of  readiug  may  arise  from  accidental  coin- 


WE8TC0TT  AND  HORT 


147 


cidence,  yet  the  chances  in  favour  of  that  possibility 
are  relatively  small,  and  diminish  with  the  increase  of 
the  number  of  texts  which  agree  in  the  reading.  The 
great  bulk  of  identities  of  reading  may  be  taken  as 
certain  evidence  of  a  common  origin.  In  other  words, 
classification  of  documents  according  to  their  resem- 
blance is  a  classification  of  them  according  to  origin. 
This  community  of  origin  may  be  either  complete, 
that  is,  due  to  a  common  ancestry  for  their  whole 
texts,  or  partial,  that  is,  due  to  mixture. 

This  factor  of  mixture  greatly  complicates  the  pro- 
cess. If  each  document  were  derived  simply  from  a 
single  previous  document,  all  the  documents,  each  with 
its  single  parent,  would  fall  into  a  simple  genealogy. 
But  a  text  may  be  mixed,  that  is,  it  may  not  have 
been  copied  from  a  single  exemplar,  but  from  two  or 
more  of  different  types,  the  copyist  selecting  the  read- 
ing now  of  one  and  now  of  another,  or  combining  the 
readings  by  mere  addition,  or  by  fusing  them,  thus 
making  what  are  termed  "  conflate  "  readings.  Or 
again,  a  copyist  might  have  been  familiar  with  a  docu- 
ment of  a  different  type  from  that  from  which  he  was 
copying,  and  might  have  introduced  its  readings,  from 
memory,  into  his  own  copy.  Or  he  might  have  intro- 
duced into  the  text  of  his  copy  corrections  from  other 
codices  which  he  found  in  the  margin  of  his  exemplar. 
The  result  would  be  a  mixed  text,  which  would  con- 
fuse genealogy. 

Dr.  Hort  distinguishes  four  types  of  text  in  the  sur- 
viving documents  :  1.  Western.  This  appears  to  have 
originated  in  Syria  or  Asia  Minor,  and  to  have  been 
carried  thence  to  Rome  and  Africa,  and  also  to  have 
passed  through  Palestine  and  Egypt  into  Ethiopia.  It 
is  represented  especially  by  D  (Gospels  and  Acts),  and 
D;,  (Pauline  Epistles),  the  Old  Latin  Versions,  and  the 
Greek  copies  on  which  they  were  based,  and,  in  part. 


"  Conflate 
readings. 


Tvpea  of 

text : 

1.  Western. 


148  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

by  the  Curetonian  Syriac.  It  appears  to  have  been 
most  widely  diffused  in  Ante-Nicene  times,  and  is  the 
text  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  who  were  not  con- 
nected with  Alexandria, — Justin,  Irenaeus,  Hippolytus, 
Methodius.  It  is  an  independent  text,  quite  distinct 
from  all  other  types.  Its  prevailing  characteristic  is 
a  love  of  paraphrase  and  of  interpolation  with  a  view 
to  enrich  the  text.  It  is  marked  by  additions,  omis- 
sions, and  assimilations  of  parallel  passages.  These 
peculiarities  go  to  show  that  it  originated  at  a  time 
when  little  regard  was  paid  to  the  exact  words  of  the 
apostolic  writings  as  compared  with  their  substance; 
probably  before  the  end  of  the  second  century. 

2.  Alexandrian  or  Egyptian.  This  seems  to  have 
proceeded  from  a  learned  and  skilful  hand  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century,  or  even  earlier.  It  is 
found  in  the  quotations  of  the  Alexandrian  Fathers  — 
Clement,  Origen,  Dionysius,  Didymus,  Cyril  —  and  in 
the  Egyptian  Versions,  especially  the  Memphitic.  It 
also  appears,  in  part,  in  Eusebius  of  Csesarea.  Its 
characteristic  is  that  which  might  be  expected  from 
the  influence  of  a  Greek  literary  centre  —  a  tendency 
to  polish  the  language  by  correcting  forms,  syntax,  etc. 

3.  Syrian.  This  was  a  mixed  text,  the  result  of  a 
recension  or  revision  of  editors  who  desired  to  present 
the  New  Testament  in  a  smooth  and  attractive  form, 
and  accordingly  borrowed  from  all  sources.  It  is  best 
represented  by  A  (in  the  Gospels,  not  in  the  Acts  and 
Epistles),  and  by  the  Peshitto  as  distinct  from  the 
Curetonian.  Its  readings  are  found  in  the  Scripture 
quotations  of  Chrysostom,  who  was  Bishop  of  Syrian 
Antioch  until  398,  and  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
until  his  death  in  407 ;  also  in  those  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  (ob.  429),  and  of  Diodorus  of  Antioch  and 
Tarsus.  The  group  is  therefore  also  called  Antiochian. 
Generally  speaking,  these  readings  are  common  in  the 


WESTCOTT  AND  HORT  149 

Fathers  of  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century  and  in 
all  subsequent  Fathers,  but  cannot  be  traced  in  the 
quotations  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers.  "  The  favourite 
text  of  Chrysostom  and  his  age  has  disappeared  en- 
tirely from  use  by  the  time  we  reach  Origen "  (War- 
field).  The  text  is  that  of  the  mass  of  the  cursives, 
most  of  which  were  written  in  Constantinople,  and  is 
mainly  identical  with  the  printed  Textus  Eeceptus. 
It  is  an  eclectic  text,  marked  by  conflate  readings,  the 
elements  of  which  are  found  in  the  other  classes,  and 
indicates  an  attempt  to  harmonise  at  least  three  con- 
flicting texts.  It  contains  no  ancient  element  that  is 
not  in  these. 

''The  qualities  which  the  authors  of  the  Syrian  Qualities  of 
text  seem  to  have  most  desired  to  impress  on  it  are  text.^"^^ 
lucidity  and  completeness.  They  were  evidently  anx- 
ious to  remove  all  stumbling-blocks  out  of  the  way  of 
the  ordinary  reader,  so  far  as  this  could  be  done  with- 
out recourse  to  violent  measures.  They  were  appar- 
ently equally  desirous  that  he  should  have  the  benefit 
of  instructive  matter  contained  in  all  the  existing  texts, 
provided  it  did  not  confuse  the  context  or  introduce 
seeming  contradictions.  New  omissions,  accordingly, 
are  rare,  and  where  they  occur  are  usually  found  to  con- 
tribute to  apparent  simplicity.  New  interpolations, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  abundant,  most  of  them  being 
due  to  harmonistic  or  other  assimilation,  fortunately 
capricious  and  incomplete.  Both  in  matter  and  in 
diction  the  Syrian  text  is  conspicuously  a  full  text. 
It  delights  in  pronouns,  conjunctions,  and  expletives, 
and  supplied  links  of  all  kinds,  as  well  as  in  more 
considerable  additions.  As  distinguished  from  the 
bold  vigour  of  the  Western  scribes,  and  the  refined 
scholarship  of  the  Alexandrians,  the  spirit  of  its  own 
corrections  is  at  once  sensible  and  feeble.  Entirely 
blameless  on  either  literary  or  religious  grounds  as 


160  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

regards  vulgarised  or  imworthy  diction,  yet  showing 
no  marks  of  either  critical  or  spiritual  insight,  it  pre- 
sents the  New  Testament  in  a  form  smooth  and  attrac- 
tive, but  appreciably  impoverished  in  sense  and  force, 
more  fitted  for  cursory  perusal  or  recitation  than  for 
repeated  and  diligent  study."  ^  Syrian  readings,  being 
later  than  Western  and  Alexandrian,  and  derived  from 
Western  and  older  sources,  are  to  be  rejected  when 
their  testimony  differs  from  that  of  the  others. 
4.  Neutral  or  4.  Neutral  or  pre-Syrian.  This  is  represented  by  B 
pre-Synan.  ^^^  largely  by  t^,  and  comes  nearest  to  the  Apostolic 
originals.  It  cannot  be  assigned  to  any  local  centre, 
but  belongs  originally  to  all  the  Eastern  world.  It 
is  characterised  by  careful  copying,  and  is  free  from 
Western  corruptions.  It  appears  in  places  far  removed 
from  Alexandria.  In  Asia  Minor  it  was  superseded 
by  the  Western  text.  The  common  original  of  B  and 
K,  for  by  far  the  greater  part  of  their  identical  read- 
ings, whatever  may  have  been  its  own  date,  has  a  very 
ancient  and  pure  text.  Their  coincidences  are  due  to 
the  extreme  antiquity  of  the  common  original  from 
which  the  ancestors  of  the  two  manuscripts  have 
diverged,  the  date  of  which  cannot  be  later  than  the 
early  part  of  the  second  century,  and  may  well  be  yet 
earlier.  There  is  no  clear  difference  of  character  in 
the  fundamental  text  common  to  B  and  S  in  any  part 
of  the  New  Testament  in  which  B  is  not  defective. 
The  textual  phenomena  which  we  find  when  we  com- 
pare them  singly  and  jointly  with  other  documents 
are,  throughout,  precisely  those  which  would  present 
themselves  in  representatives  of  two  single  lines  diverg- 
ing from  a  point  near  the  autographs,  and  not  coming 
into  contact  subsequently. 

The  readings  of  the  Neutral  text,  when  established, 

1  Dr.  Hort,  Introduction,  §  187. 


WESTCOTT  AND  HORT  161 

are  to  be  accepted  in  the  face  of  the  numerical  pre- 
ponderance of  other  texts. 

Dr.  Hort  thus  recapitulates :  "The  continuity,  it  will  Dr.  Hort 
be  seen,  is  complete.  Early  in  the  second  century  we  fates^^**^' 
find  the  Western  text  already  wandering  into  greater 
and  greater  adulteration  of  the  Apostolic  text,  which, 
while  doubtless  holding  its  ground  in  different  places, 
has  its  securest  refuge  at  Alexandria ;  but  there,  in  turn, 
it  suffers  from  another  but  slighter  series  of  changes, 
and  all  this  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
At  no  long  time  after,  we  find  an  attempt  made, 
apparently  at  Antioch,  to  remedy  the  growing  con- 
fusion of  texts  by  the  editing  of  an  eclectic  text  com- 
bining readings  from  the  three  principal  texts,  itself 
further  revised  on  like  principles,  and  in  that  form 
used  by  great  Antiochian  theologians  not  long  after 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  From  that  date, 
and  indeed  earlier,  we  find  a  chaos  of  varying  mixed 
texts,  in  which,  as  time  advances,  the  elder  texts  re- 
cede, and  the  Antiochian  text,  now  established  at 
Constantinople,  increasingly  prevails.  Then  even  the 
later  types  with  mixed  base  disappear,  and,  with  the 
rarest  exceptions,  the  Constantinopolitan  text  alone 
is  copied,  often  at  first  with  relics  of  its  vanquished 
rivals  included,  till  at  last  these  two  dwindle,  and  in 
the  copies  written  shortly  before  the  invention  of  print- 
ing, its  victory  is  all  but  complete.  At  each  stage 
there  are  irregularities  and  obscurities ;  but  we  believe 
the  above  to  be  a  true  sketch  of  the  leading  incidents 
in  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament ;  and, 
if  it  be  true,  its  significance  as  a  key  to  the  com- 
plexities of  documentary  evidence  is  patent  without 
explanation." 

Briefly,  then,  while  the  majority  of  our  extant  manu- 
scripts contain  a  revised,  and  therefore  less  original, 
text,  a  comparatively  small  group  contains  texts  which 


152 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Reception  of 
Westcott 
and  Hort's 
Testament. 


Points 
assailed. 


The  third- 
century 


were  not  subject  to  this  revision  or  were  prior  to  it. 
Consequently,  the  evidence  of  this  small  group  is 
usually  to  be  preferred  to  that  of  the  great  mass  of 
manuscripts  and  versions. 

Westcott  and  Hort's  New  Testament  received  a  cor- 
dial welcome  from  many  scholars  in  England  and  else- 
where, from  Roman  Catholics  as  well  as  Protestants.^ 
On  the  other  hand,  the  work  was  severely  attacked  by 
the  conservative  critics,  notably  by  Dr.  Scrivener  and 
Dean  Burgon.  Perhaps  the  most  vulnerable  point  was 
the  very  corner-stone  of  the  textual  theory  —  the  au- 
thoritative recension  at  Antioch  of  the  Greek  text, 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  which,  in  its 
turn,  became  the  standard  for  a  similar  revision  of  the 
Syrian  text,  representing  the  transmutation  of  the 
Curetonian  into  the  Peshitto,  while  the  Greek  recen- 
sion itself  underwent  a  second  revision.^  Dr.  Scrivener 
says :  "  Of  this  twofold  authoritative  revision  of  the 
Greek  text,  of  this  formal  transmutation  of  the  Cure- 
tonian Syriac  into  the  Peshitto,  although  they  must 
have  been,  of  necessity,  public  acts  of  great  churches 
in  ages  abounding  in  councils,  general  or  provincial, 
not  one  trace  remains  in  the  history  of  Christian  a.ntiq- 
uity ;  no  one  writer  seems  conscious  that  any  modifica- 
tion, either  of  the  Greek  Scriptures  or  of  the  vernacu- 
lar translation,  was  made  in  or  before  his  time.  It 
is  as  if  the  Bishops'  Bible  had  been  thrust  out  of  the 
English  Church  service  and  out  of  the  studies  of  her 
divines,  and  the  Bible  of  1611  had  silently  taken  its 
place,  no  one  knew  how,  or  when,  or  why,  or,  indeed, 
that  any  change  whatever  had  been  made.  Yet,  re- 
garding his  speculative  conjecture  as  indubitably  true, 

1  Dr.  Schaff  has  collected  a  number  of  tributes  in  his  Com- 
panion to  the  Greek  Testament  and  English  Version,  3d  ed., 
280  ff. 

2  See  Hort's  Introduction,  §§  189,  1»0. 


CRITICISMS  OF  WESTCOTT  AND  HOST     153 


Dr.  Hort  proceeds  to  name  the  text  as  it  stood  before 
his  imaginary  era  of  transfusion,  a  pre-Syrian  text, 
and  that  into  which  it  was  changed,  sometimes  Antio- 
chian,  more  often  Syrian ;  while  of  the  latter  recension, 
though  made  deliberately,  as  our  author  believes,  by 
the  authoritative  voice  of  the  Eastern  Church,  he  does 
not  shrink  from  declaring  that  all  distinctively  Syrian 
readings  must  be  at  once  rejected,  thus  making  a  clean 
sweep  of  all  critical  materials,  —  Fathers,  Versions, 
manuscripts,  uncial  or  cursive,  comprising  about  nine- 
teen-twentieths  of  the  whole  mass,  which  do  not  corre- 
spond with  his  preconceived  opinion  of  what  a  correct 
text  ought  to  be." 

Exception  was  also  taken  to  the  editors'  omissions 
from  the  text ;  to  their  inconsistency  in  rejecting  West- 
ern readings  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  in  in- 
dorsing their  omissions  of  what  was  attested  by  other 
authorities.  The  names  given  to  the  families  of  texts 
were  challenged.  The  term  "Western"  was  declared 
to  be  inaccurate,  since  the  type  of  text  so  designated 
was  not  confined  to  the  West,  and  even  the  editors  ad- 
mit that  readings  of  this  class  were  current  in  the  East 
as  well  as  in  the  West,  and  probably,  to  a  great  extent, 
had  originated  there.  The  name  "  Neutral  "  was  con- 
demned, as  presupposing  that  all  additions  or  altera- 
tions in  the  text  were  due  to  later  corruptions.  Also 
the  name  "  Alexandrian,"  because  used  in  a  sense  not 
previously  employed.  It  was  further  objected  that  the 
designation  of  the  Curetonian  Syriac  as  "  the  Old 
Syriac,"  and  of  the  Peshitto  as  "  the  Vulgate,"  begged 
the  whole  question  of  the  relative  age  of  the  two.  The 
editors  were  severely  taken  to  task  for  assigning  undue 
weight  to  the  testimony  of  J^  and  B.  "  That  S  B  should 
thus  lift  up  their  heads  against  all  the  world  is  much, 
especially  having  regard  to  the  fact  that  several  Ver- 
sions and  not  a  few  Fathers  are  older  than  they ;  for 


Omissions. 
Names 
given  to 
families  of 
texts. 


Designation 
of  Cureton- 
ian as  "  Old 
Syriac." 
Undue 
weight  as- 
signed to  s 
and  B. 


154  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

while  we  grant  that  a  simple  patristic  citation,  stand- 
ing by  itself,  is  of  little  value,  yet  when  the  context  or 
current  of  exposition  renders  it  clear  what  reading 
these  writers  had  before  them,  they  must  surely,  for 
that  passage,  be  equivalent  as  authorities  to  a  manu- 
script of  their  own  age  "  (Scrivener).^ 
Revisers  of  The  Revisers  of  1881. — The  history  of  the  Eevised 
Jonltnfct  a*  Version  of  1881  is  too  well  known  to  require  recapitu- 
Greek  text,  lation.  Naturally  a  large  proportion  of  the  changes 
introduced  by  the  Eevisers  grew  out  of  differences  in 
the  text  translated.  The  Revisers,  in  the  matter  of 
text,  did  not  claim  to  be  discoverers.  They  confined 
themselves  mostly  to  the  verification  and  registration 
of  the  best-established  conclusions  of  modern  textual 
criticism.  Their  text  was  drawn  from  the  best  docu- 
mentary sources  which  have  been  discovered  in  the  last 
three  hundred  years.  It  has  been  estimated  that  the 
Greek  text  of  1881  differs  from  that  of  1611  in  at  least 
5788  readings.  In  their  preface  the  Revisers  say,  "  A 
revision  of  the  Greek  text  was  the  necessary  founda- 
tion of  our  work,  but  it  did  not  fall  within  our  province 
to  construct  a  continuous  and  complete  Greek  text." 

In  the  English  committee.  Dr.  Hort  and  Dr.  Scrivener 
were  the  recognised  authorities  on  textual  questions. 
The  traditional  text  and  the  later  text  had  therefore 
each  a  fair  hearing.  The  Revisers  followed  the  text  of 
Westcott  and  Hort  closely,  though  not  absolutely. 
"  The  combination  of  i<  B  with  two  or  more   of  the 


1  The  principal  objections  are  well  stated  in  the  recent  vol- 
ume of  Dr.  George  Salmon,  Provost  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin  : 
Some  Thoughts  on  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, London,  1897.  The  book  has  a  peculiar  interest  as 
coming  from  a  close  personal  friend  of  Dr.  Hort,  The  textual 
theory  of  the  two  editors  is  handled  with  great  candour  and  dis- 
crimination, and  some  of  the  points  against  it  are  very  effec- 
tively made. 


scrivener's  and  palmer's  testaments    155 

greater  uncials  has  been  treated  by  them  as  all  but  de- 
cisive. The  combination  of  i<  B  with  one  other  first- 
class  uncial  has  also  had  the  greatest  weight.  There 
are  forty -one  instances  of  agreement  with  this  combi- 
nation, and  only  three  instances  of  difference  from  it. 
In  the  case  of  the  single  pair  J<  B  alone,  there  is  much 
greater  indecision.  Their  authority  has  been  followed 
in  from  fifteen  to  nineteen  cases,  and  rejected  in  twelve. 
With  any  other  single  supporter  than  i^,  B  has  carried 
less  weight  still,  the  numbers  here  being  eleven  to  four, 
while  the  isolated  evidence  of  B  has  been  rejected  in 
nine  out  of  ten  cases  "  (Professor  Sanday).^ 

Two  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  have  a 
special  interest  in  connection  with  the  Eevised  Version, 
appeared  simultaneously  with  the  edition  of  Westcott 
and  Hort.  The  Revisers  were  not,  however,  responsi- 
ble for  their  publication.  Neither  claimed  to  be  an  in- 
dependent, critical  recension  of  the  text.  The  first  was 
by  Dr.  Scrivener,  The  New  Testament  in  the  Original 
Greek  according  to  the  Text  followed  in  the  Authorised 
Version,  together  ivith  the  Variations  adopted  in  the  He- 
vised  Version,  Cambridge,  1881.  The  new  readings 
were  placed  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  and  the  displaced 
readings  were  printed  in  the  text  in  heavier  type.  The 
appendix  furnished  a  list  of  the  j)assages  in  which  the 
Authorised  Version  differs  from  Beza's  text  of  1598, 
and  agrees  with  certain  earlier  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  The  other  edition  was  by  Dr.  E.  Palmer, 
Archdeacon  of  Oxford,  H  KAINH  AIA0HKH.  The 
Greek  Testament  ivith  the  Headings  adoj^ted  by  the  Re- 

1  On  the  Revisers'  text  see  a  series  of  articles  by  Rev.  W. 
Sanday,  D.D.,  The  Revised  Version  of  the  Neio  Testament,  in 
the  Expositor,  2d  series,  II,  1881  ;  very  valuable.  See  also  Dr. 
B.  B.  Warfield,  Preshyterian  Quarterly,  April,  1882,  and  The 
Revisers  and  the  Greek  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  London, 
1882,  supposed  to  be  by  Bishop  Ellicott  and  Archdeacon  Palmer. 


156  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

visers  of  the  Authorised  Versioji,  Oxford,  1881.  Palmer 
gave  the  Greek  text  followed  by  the  Eevisers,  and 
placed  the  rejected  readings  of  the  Textus  Receptus 
and  of  the  Authorised  Version  in  foot-notes.  The  con- 
tinuous text  has  for  its  basis  Stephen's  third  edition 
(1550),  which  is  followed  in  all  cases  where  the  Revis- 
ers do  not  prefer  other  readings.  Stephen's  orthog- 
raphy, spelling  of  proper  names,  and  typographical 
peculiarities  or  errors  are,  with  a  few  exceptions,  re- 
tained, together  with  his  marking  of  chapters.  The 
verses  are  distributed  according  to  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion. 


CHAPTEE  XVII 

RECENT  CONTRIBUTIONS.     WEISS.     STUDIES  IN 
CODEX   D 

Dr.  Bernhard  Weiss  of  Berlin  has,  for  some  time,  Dr.  Weiss's 
been  carrying  on  a  new  and  independent  construction  of°the^ext.^ 
of  the  text.  No  summary  statement  of  his  textual 
principles  has  been  presented,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
either  by  himself  or  by  others.  The  results  of  his 
work  appear  in  minute  detail  in  his  Neue  Testament. 
TextkritischeUntersuchungen  unci  TexthersteUung.  Vol.1, 
Leipzig,  1893,  contains  the  Acts,  Catholic  Epistles,  and 
Apocalypse ;  Vol.  II,  1896,  the  Pauline  Epistles.  He 
complains  that  he  has  been  constantly  annoyed  in  his 
exegetical  work  by  the  uncertainty  of  the  text.  Neither 
the  usual  reasons  of  the  commentators  for  determining 
the  value  of  various  readings  nor  the  modern  editions 
of  the  text  appeared  to  offer  him  a  satisfactory  and  cer- 
tain path  toward  a  decision.  The  collations  in  Tischen- 
dorf's  apparatus  need  to  be  verified  anew.  He  treats 
the  text  under  the  heads  of  Omissions  and  Additions, 
Changes  of  Position,  and  Orthographical  Variations.^ 

Studies  in  the  Codex  Bezae.  —  Within  a  few  years 
special  attention  has  been  directed  at  the  peculiar 
readings  of  the  Codex  Bezse  (D,  Gospels  and  Acts) 
and  their  bearing  upon  the  history  of  the  text.  The 
following  section  on  this  subject  has  been  prepared  by  Rev.  J.  E. 
the  Kev.  James  Everett  Erame,  Instructor  in  the  New  codeiBez© 

1  See  C.  R.  Gregory,  "Bernhard  Weiss  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment," American  Journal  of  Theology,  January,  1897. 
167 


168 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Contradic- 
tory views 
of  Hort  and 
Burgon. 


History  of 
Codex  Bezae. 


Testament  Department  of  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

^*When  every  allowance  has  been  made  for  possible 
individual  license,  the  text  of  D  presents  a  truer  image 
of  the  form  in  which  the  Gospels  and  Acts  were  most 
widely  read  in  the  third  and  probably  a  great  part  of 
the  second  century,  than  any  other  extant  Greek 
manuscript."  So  Dr.  Hort  (Introduction,  2d  ed., 
149).  Codex  Bezae,  along  with  the  Sinaiticus  and  the 
Vaticanus,  exhibits  "the  most  shamefully  mutilated 
text,"  and  has  become  the  depository  of  "  the  largest 
amount  of  fabricated  readings,  ancient  blunders,  and 
intentional  perversions  of  truth  which  are  discernible 
in  any  known  copies  of  the  Word  of  God."  So  Dean 
Burgon  {Revision  Revised,  16).  These  opinions  have 
been  registered  to  indicate  at  the  outset  the  diver- 
sity of  views  which  prevail  in  regard  to  this  puz- 
zling uncial. 

Codex  Bezse  is  a  bilingual,  Greek  and  Latin,  so 
arranged  that  the  Greek  text  has  the  place  of  honour 
on  the  left  side  of  the  open  book,  while  the  Latin 
Version  has  the  right  side.  It  contains  at  present  the 
Gospels  and  Acts,  though  not  a  few  leaves  are  miss- 
ing, as,  for  instance.  Acts  22  :  29-28  :  31,  which  is 
lacking  in  both  D  (the  Greek  text)  and  d  (the  Latin 
Version).  It  is  divided  into  lines  or  verses,  that  is, 
the  arrangement  is  stichometric,  although  the  divi- 
sions into  lines  do  not  always  correspond  with  the 
divisions  in  sense.  As  to  date,  it  is  generally  assigned 
to  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century.  It  was  first 
brought  to  public  notice  ten  centuries  later  by  Beza, 
who  got  possession  of  it  in  1562.  How  long  it  had 
lain  in  the  Monastery  of  Irenaeus  in  Lyons,  whence 
Beza  obtained  it,  is  uncertain.  In  1581  Beza  presented 
it  to  the  University  of  Cambridge,  that  it  might  be 
preserved,  but  not  published ;  for  he  thought  the  vari- 


><5>^  =  f  =  i  - 

< 


-  <  ^  r 


CODEX  BEZ^  159 

ants,  especially  in  Luke,  might  give  offence.      The 
warning  was  heeded,  although  Beza  himself  had  pub- 
lished some  of  the  variants  in  his  Greek  Testament, 
and  other  readings  became  known.     Finally,  however, 
William  Whiston,  the  translator  of  Josephus,  did  the 
Codex  into  English  in  1747;    and  in  1793  Thomas 
Kipling  pubiislied  the  first  edition  of  the  Codex,  call-  First  pub- 
ing  it,  after  the  name  of  its  donor  and  of  the  Univer-  Jjon^^/^^' 
sity  to  which  it  was  given,  Tlie  Cambridge  Codex  of  Codex  Bezae. 
TJieodore  Beza} 

An  accurate  edition,   "being  an  exact  copy  in  or-  Scrivener's 
dinary  type  .  .  .  with  a  critical  Introduction,  Anno-  Nest??s^col- 
tations,  and  Facsimiles,"  was  issued  by  Scrivener  in  lation. 
1864  (Bezce  Codex  Cantabrigiensis,  etc.),  and  a  colla- 
tion of  the  readings  of  the  Codex  by  Eb.  Nestle  (JSfovi 
Testamenti  Greed  Supplementum,  1896).     To  these  two 
the  student  is  referred  until  the  appearance  of  the 
new  photogravure  reproduction,  now  preparing  under 
the  direction  of  the  Cambridge  authorities. 

A  restoration  of  the  "  Western  "  or  Eoman  text  of  Blass's  res- 
Acts  and  Luke  has  been  attempted  by  Fried.  Blass  in  th?^'^West- 
his  Acta  Apostolorum,  1896  (ed.  Minor),  and  his  Evan-  ern  "  text  of 
geliinn  secundum  Lucam,  1897.      Compare,  also,  his  Luke's  Gos- 
Editio  PMlologka  of  Acts,  1895.^  pel- 

The  present  extraordinary  interest  in  Codex  Bezae 
is  due,  not  so  much  to  the  fact  of  its  variations  from 
some  given  text,  the  Keceptus  or  Westcott  and  Hort, 

1  WiUiam  "Whiston,  Primitive  New  Testament^  1747.  He 
also  translated  the  Codex  Claromontanus  (Paul)  and  the  Codex 
Alexandriuus  (Catholic  Epistles).  Thomas  Kipling,  Codex 
Theodori  Bezce  Cantabrigiensis,  1793. 

2  See  0.  von  Gebhardt,  article  "Bibeltext,"  Herzog's  Beal- 
Encyklopddie,  Bd.  II,  S.  743.  C.  A,  Briggs,  Study  of  Holy 
Scripture,  1899,  200  ff.  H.  Trabaud,  "  Un  Curieux  Manuscrit 
du  Nouveau  Testament,"  Beviie  de  Thiol,  et  de  Phil,  1896, 
378  ff.  Gregory's  Prolegomena,  or  any  good  Introduction,  as 
Holtzmann,  Julicher,  Weiss,  Salmon. 


160 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


for  instance,  as  to  the  uniqueness  of  its  variations. 
In  addition  to  the  ordinary  inaccuracies  due  to  the 
writer  of  the  Codex,  or  his  archetype,  or  both,  and  the 
usual  corruptions  common  to  all  codices,  Codex  D  ex- 
hibits certain  characteristic  tendencies;  such  as  the 
love  for  adding  or  recasting  words,  clauses,  or  sen- 
tences, and  for  harmonising  apparently  contradictory 
passages.  As  a  specimen  of  the  additions  which  this 
Codex  alone  contributes,  see  Luke  6.  After  the  fourth 
verse  we  read,  "On  the  same  day,  as  He  (Jesus)  be- 
held a  man  labouring  on  the  Sabbath,  he  said  to  him : 
Man,  if  thou  knowest  what  thou  doest,  blessed  art 
thou ;  if  however  thou  dost  not  know,  cursed  art  thou 
and  a  transgressor  of  the  law."  In  Luke  11 :  2,  be- 
tween the  words  "pray"  and  "say,"  we  read,  "Use 
not  vain  repetitions  as  the  rest  do,  for  some  think  that 
they  shall  be  heard  for  their  much  speaking.  On  the 
contrary,  when  ye  pray,"  etc.  In  Acts  12  :  10,  after 
"  they  went  out,"  there  is  added,  "  and  they  descended 
the  seven  steps."  In  Acts  10:25,  we  find,  "When 
Peter  drew  near  unto  Csesarea,  one  of  the  slaves  ran 
forward  and  announced  his  arrival.  And  Cornelius 
jumped  up."  In  Acts  11 :  27,  after  "  Antioch,"  there 
is  added,  "and  there  was  great  rejoicing.  And  we 
being  assembled,"  etc.  This  addition  is  interesting  in 
the  light  of  the  so-called  we-sections  in  Acts. 

It  must  not,  however,  be  assumed  from  these  few 
examples,  that  all  the  contributions  of  this  Codex  are 
alike  interesting  and  valuable.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  tendency  of  Codex  Bezse  is  to  "  conflate  "  the  text, 
and  thus  most  of  the  contributions  are  nothing  more 
than  simple  glosses.^  Furthermore,  it  must  not  be 
assumed  that  D  stands  alone  in  its  variations.  Rather 
it  is  a  member  of  an  ancient  and  honourable  family. 

1  For  detailed  proof,  see  B.  Weiss,  Der  Codex  D  in  der  Apos- 
telgeschichte  {Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  XVII,  1897). 


CODEX  BEZ^  161 

The  form  of  text  which  it  preserves  is  supported  by 
many   Church   Fathers  of   the  second  and  following 
centuries,  and  by  the  Old  Latin  and  Syriac  Versions. 
Thus,  although  the  Codex  itself  dates  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  sixth  century,  yet  the  type  of  text  which  Type  of  text 
it  represents  is  traceable  as  far  back  as  the  second  second^cen^ 
century.     It  is  to  be  found,  for  instance,  in  Cyprian  tury. 
and  Tertullian  at  Carthage,  and  in  Irenaeus  at  Lyons, 
where  Codex  Bezae  was  discovered ;  and  traces  of  it 
appear  in  Clement  and  Origen  at  Alexandria,  as  well 
as  at  Kome.^ 

The  Old  Latin  Versions,  and  the  Versions  in  Syriac 
(Curetonian,  Philoxenian,  Lewis),  likewise  present  a 
similar  type  of  text.     In  fact,  it  is  generally  admitted 
that  about  the  year  200  a  type  of  text  similar  to  that 
of  Codex  Bezae  was  spread  abroad  in  Syria  and  in  the 
West.     Nay,  more,  traces  of  this  text  may  possibly 
exist  in  Justin  Martyr  and  Marcion,  that  is,  as  early 
as  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  and  thus  it  may 
be  that  Codex  D  represents  the  oldest  edition  of  the 
New  Testament  books  which  gained  a  wide  circulation.^ 
To  this  type  of  text  the  term  "Western"  has  been  The  term 
applied  since  the  time  of  Semler,  and  has  been  appro-  Jj'aTno  ^eo- 
priated  also  by  Hort.^    It  is  a  conventional  symbol,   graphical 
and  has  no  distinctively  geographical  signification.     It  tifn.^^^*" 
is  to  the  East  that  most  scholars  look  for  the  origin 
of  the  Western  text,   and   specifically   to   Syria  and 
Antioch.     Thence  it    spread  over   the   lines  of  com- 
merce to  Southern  Gaul,  Carthage,  Eome,  and  Alex- 
andria.    Codex  Bezae  thus  does  not  stand  alone.     The 
majority  of  its  typical  characteristics  are  to  be  found 

1  See  P.  Corssen,  Der  Cyprianische  Text  der  Acta  Aposto- 
loriim,  Berlin,  1892.     Hort,  Introduction,  113. 

2  See  W.  Bousset,  Theologische  Bundschau,  I,  406-416,  Juli, 
1898,  S.  410. 

8  See  Gregory's  Prolegomena,  188.     Hort,  Introduction,  113. 


162 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


1.  Theory  of 
Latinisation 
held  by  Mill, 
Wetstein, 
J.  R.  Harris. 


2.  Chase's 
theory  of 
Syriacisa- 
tion. 


throughout  the  entire  Western  group.  Thus,  in  Matt. 
20 :  28,  we  find  D  supported  in  its  insertion,  or  in 
Luke  10:42;  22:19-20;  23:34,  supported  in  its 
omissions.  Bearing  in  mind,  therefore,  that  Codex 
Bezae  is  a  member  of  a  family,  and  the  Baconian 
warning  as  to  the  vice  of  neglecting  negative  in- 
stances, we  proceed  to  give  a  summary  of  recent 
opinions  concerning  the  type  of  text  represented  by 
this  Codex. 

1.  Theory  of  Latinisation.  —  In  facing  a  Grseco-Latin 
codex  the  first  question  is :  Is  the  Greek  text  de- 
pendent upon  the  Latin,  or  is  each  independent  ?  The 
prevailing  view  up  to  the  time  of  Griesbach  was  that 
the  Western  Greek  text  is  due  to  a  readjustment  to 
the  Latin  Versions  (so  Mill,  Wetstein).  This  "  whim- 
sical "  (Hort)  theory,  given  up  by  Griesbach  and  his 
successors,  is  defended  by  J.  Kendel  Harris  {Study  of 
the  Codex  Bezoi,  1891),  who  attempts  to  prove  "  that 
the  whole  of  the  Greek  text  of  Codex  Bezae,  from  the 
beginning  of  Matthew  to  the  end  of  Acts,  is  a  re- 
adjustment of  an  earlier  text  to  the  Latin  Version." 
"The  Greek  has  no  certain  value  except  where  it 
differs  from  its  own  Latin,  and  must  not  any  longer  be 
regarded  as  an  independent  authority."  And  three 
years  later  {Four  Lectures  on  the  Western  Text,  1894, 
73), "  The  Bezan  Latin  is  more  archaic  than  the  Bezan 
Greek." 

2.  Theory  of  Syriacisation.  —  Professor  Harris's 
study  induced  another  Cambridge  scholar.  Professor 
r.  H.  Chase,  to  investigate  the  Codex,  and  especially 
the  text  of  Acts,  with  the  result  that  "  the  Bezan  Greek 
is  moulded  on  a  Syrian  text,"  a  conclusion  which 
seemed  to  disprove  the  theory  of  Latinisation.^  In 
his  study,  Professor  Chase  was   led   to   assume   the 


F.  H.  Chase,  The  Old  Syriac  Element  in  Codex  Bezae,  1893. 


CODEX  BEZjE 


163 


existence  of  an  old  Syriac  text  of  the  Acts,  of  which 
Hort  had  said,  twelve  years  previously,  "Nothing  as 
yet  is  known  "  (Introduction,  85).  Professor  Harris, 
in  a  review  of  Professor  Chase's  book,  thinks  he  has 
removed  the  hypothesis  of  an  old  Syriac  text  of  Acts 
into  the  region  of  fact  (an  opinion  which  seems  to 
have  been  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  Mrs.  Lewis), 
but  does  not  feel  himself  compelled  to  give  up  the 
theory  of  Latinisation.^ 

Probably  no  one  theory  explains  all  the  variations 
in  the  text  of  the  Codex.  The  Latinisation  theory 
may  explain  some,  the  Syriacisation  theory  others ; 
while  the  usual  theory  that  the  Latin  has  been  ad- 
justed to  the  Greek  may  explain  still  others.  It  can- 
not be  said  that  the  Codex  represents  the  only  pure 
text,  as  Bornemann,^  nor  that  it  is  the  most  depraved 
text,  as  Burgon.^  At  all  events,  the  relation  of  Codex 
Bezse  to  the  Old  Latin  and  Old  Syriac  texts  seems  to 
have  been  established. 

3.  Tlieory  of  Jewish-Christian  Origin.  —  Dr.  Eeschis 
in  search  of  an  original  Gospel  in  Hebrew.  He  is  in- 
terested in  every  possible  genuine  "agraphon,"  any 
Hebraising  text  which  may  point  to  an  original  He- 
brew text,  and  any  variants  in  the  Gospel  texts  or  in 
the  citations  of  the  Fathers.  The  variants,  therefore, 
in  the  Gospels  of  Codex  Bezae  and  its  Western  rela^ 
tives  are  of  immense  importance  to  him.  He  holds 
with  Credner  the  theory  of  the  Jewish-Christian  origin 
of  the  Codex  Bezae,  though,  unlike  Credner,  he  recog- 
nises its  relation  to  the  Old  Latin  and  Old  Syriac  texts, 
and,  like  Professor  Harris,  holds  that  a  primitive  bi- 
lingual existed  before  the  time  of  Tatian.     The  "  un- 

1  See  Hackmann  on  Chase,  Theol.  Lits.,  1894;  col.  604-609. 
Harris,  Four  Lectures,  etc.,  14  ff. 

2  Acta  Apostolorum,  etc.,  I,  1848. 
'  Revision  Revised,  12. 


No  one 
theory  ex- 
plains all 
the  varia- 
tions. 


3.  Resch's 
and  Cred- 
ner's  theory 
of  Jewish- 
Christian 
origin. 


Luke. 


164  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

known  authority  "  of  Credner,  which  lies  at  the  back  of 
the  Western  text  as  one  of  its  sources,  is  identified 
by  Resch  with  a  secondary  translation  of  the  original 
Hebrew  Gospel.  The  "great  unknown"  of  Credner, 
Professor  Bousset  thinks,  has  a  good  deal  of  the  ghost 
in  it.  Dr.  Eesch's  theory  has  met  with  little  accept- 
ance among  scholars.  Professor  Harris  does  not  think 
the  theory  impossible,  but  notes  that  the  palseo- 
graphical  facts  are  against  it.  Professor  Ropes,  in  his 
review  of  Resch's  Agrapha,  feels  certain  that  the 
theory  of  Jewish-Christian  origin  has  been  conclu- 
sively refuted.^ 
4.  Blass's  4.   Theory  of  Two  Editions  of  Acts  and  Luke.  —  To  be 

two°ediUons  considered  more  at  length  is  the  theory  of  the  philolo- 
of  Acts  and  gist,  Professor  Priedrich  Blass  of  Halle,  first  published 
in  an  article  entitled  Twofold  Tradition  of  the  Text  in 
Acts  (1894),  and  in  its  latest  form  extended  now  to 
the  Gospel  of  Luke  (1897).  The  reader  is  referred 
especially  to  the  Praefatio  in  his  Evangelium  secun- 
dum Lucain  (1897),  although  there  is  some  additional 
material  in  his  Philology  of  the  Gospels  (1898).  Pro- 
fessor Blass  has  written  extensively  in  support  of 
his  theory,  confining  his  attention  at  first  to  the  double 
form  of  the  text  in  Acts.  His  theory,  as  first  stated, 
is  that  Luke  issued  two  copies,  a  rough  draft,  repre- 
sented by  the  Western  text,  and  the  corrected  and  less 
prolix  copy,  represented  by  the  usual  text.     The  former 

1  See  A.  Resch,  Aussercanonische  Faralleltexte  zu  den 
Evangelien,  1893-96  {Texte  und  Untersuclmngen,  X,  1-4). 
K.  A.  Credner,  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  in  die  bihlischen 
Schriften,  1832,  I,  452-518.  J.  R.  Harris,  Four  Lectures,  etc., 
4 ;  1-13.  W.  Bousset,  Die  Evangeliencitate  Ju^tins  des  Mdr- 
tyrers,  1891,  S.  7.  F?iu\Ewa\d,  Das  Haitptpj'oblem  der  Evan- 
gelienfrage  u.  s.  lo.,  1890,  holds  to  Credner's  theory.  J.  H. 
Ropes,  Die  SprUche  Jesu,  1896,  a  careful  sifting  of  Rcsch's 
Agrapha.  Also  review  by  him  and  Professor  Torrey  in  Ameri- 
can Journal  of  Theology,  April,  1899. 


CODEX  BEZjS  165 

was  designed  for  Roman  readers,  the  latter  for  The- 
ophilus.^ 

The  theory  of  two  editions  is  not  new.     Joannes  The  two- 
Clericus,  in  the  last  century,  was  almost  of  the  opinion  theory  not 
that  Luke  edited  the  Acts  twice  (Acta  Apostolorum,  new.    cieri- 
ed.  Minor,  III.     Reference  to  Clericus  or  Hemsterhuis   Ligiitfoot.' 
not  exact).     Hort  also  had  thought  that  "  the  purely 
documentary  phenomena  (were)  compatible  with  the 
supposition  that  the  Western  and  the  non- Western  texts 
started  respectively  from  a  first  and  a  second  edition 
of  the  Gospels,  both  conceivably  apostolic  "  (Introduc- 
tion, 177),  but  dismisses  the  theory  on  internal  grounds. 
Lightfoot  also  had  suggested  that  "  the  Evangelist  him- 
self might  have  issued  two  separate  editions  "  of  his 
Gospel  and  also  of  the  Acts.^     Professor  Zahn  also, 
in  the  winter  of  1885-86,  had  come  to  the  opinion  that 
the  Bezan  text  of  Acts  represents  "  either  the  rough 
draft  of  the  author  before  publication,  or  the   copy 

1  The  Philology  of  the  Gospels  is  a  dilution  of  his  admira- 
ble preface  to  Luke,  adapted  to  English  readers  who  do  not 
read  Latin.  Professor  C.  R.  Gregory,  in  a  review  of  the  book 
(American  Journal  of  Theology,  October,  1898,  881),  calls  it  a 
series  of  "rambling  observations."  The  title  "  Philology  "  is 
certainly  misleading,  as  is  that  of  "  Gospels." 

For  convenience,  the  following  list  of  Professor  Blass's  writ- 
ings on  the  subject  is  appended :  — 

Stiid.  u.  Krit.  1894,  S.  86-120,  "  Die  Zweif ache  Texttiberlief er- 
ung  in  der  Apostelgeschichte."  Neue  kirchliche  Zeitschr.  1895, 
S.  712-725,  "Ueber  die  verschiedenen  Textesformen  in  den 
Schriften  des  Lucas."  Hermathena,  1895, 121-143  (IX,  No.  31), 
"  De  duplici  forma  Actorum  Lucse."  Acta  Apostolorum,  Edi- 
tio  Philologica,  1895.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1896,  S.  436-471,  "  Neue 
Texteszeugen  fur  die  Apostelgeschichte."  Ibid.,  S.  733  ff.  (on 
Luke  22: 15  ff.).  Acta  Apostolorum  (ed.  Minor),  1S96.  Her- 
mathena,  1896,  291  ff.,  "De  Variis  Formis  EvangeKi  Lucani." 
Evangelium  secundum  Liicam,  1897.  Philology  of  the  Gospels, 
1898. 

*  Fresh  Bevision  of  the  English  New  Testament,  1873,  43. 


166 


TEXTUAL   CBITICISM 


(Handexemplar)  belonging  to  the  author,  along  with 
supplementary  marginal  notes."  ^  But  Blass  deserves 
whatever  credit  there  is'  in  the  theory.  At  first,  as  has 
been  noted,  Blass  spoke  of  "  rough  draft "  and  "  cor- 
rected copy."  The  Western  text  corresponded  with 
the  former,  and  the  usual  text  with  the  latter.  When, 
however,  he  applied  the  hypothesis  to  the  Gospel  of 
Luke,  he  found  that  the  Western  text  of  Luke  corre- 
sponded with  the  corrected  copy,  while  the  usual  text 
corresponded  with  the  rough  draft ;  or,  in  a  word,  that 
the  text-phenomena  in  Acts  and  in  Luke  were  dissimi- 
lar (Evang.  Luc,  V  ff.  Acta,  ed.  Minor,  V.,  Philology, 
etc.,  103).  An  amendment  to  the  theory  became  nec- 
essary. The  theory  as  amended  "  requires  merely  one 
older  copy  and  one  more  recent."  ^  The  more  recent 
copy  is  abridged,  the  work  "becoming  somewhat  tedious 
for  the  author,  or  at  least  losing  something  of  its  fresh- 
ness for  him,  so  that  he  w^as  naturally  disposed  to 
omit  many  unessential  circumstances  and  details  which 
he  formerly  had  given."  ^  The  curious  result  is  that 
the  abridged  edition  of  the  Gospel  is  represented  by 
the  Western  text,  that  of  Acts  by  the  non-Western 
text.  Theophilus  gets  an  unabridged  edition  of  the 
Gospel,  and  an  abridged  edition  of  Acts;  while  the 
readers  in  Rome  get  an  abridged  edition  of  the  Gospel 
and  an  unabridged  edition  of  Acts.  Both  seem  to 
have  been  content  with  the  arrangement.  In  support 
of  the  theory  for  Acts,  Blass  urges  (1)  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  additions  and  variants  of  the  Western 
text  is  Lucan,  and  (2)  that  the  additions  themselves 
are  possible  only  to  a  contemporary,  that  is,  to  the 
author  himself.*  At  this  point  Blass  remarks  that  it 
is  easier  to  test  the  insertions  of  the  Western  (or  as  he 

1  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament^  Bd.  II,  1899,  S.  338- 
369.     Compare  S.  348. 

2  Philology,  126.         •  Ibi^.^  104.  *  Ibid.,  113  ft.,  119  ff. 


CODEX  BEZ^  167 

prefers  to  call  it,  Roman)  text  of  Acts  than  to  test  the 
omissions  of  the   Western  text   of  the  Gospel,  and, 
hence,  that  it  is  easier  to  defend  the  theory  of  two  edi-  Theory  of 
tions  in  the  case  of  Acts  than  in  the  case  of  Luke.^  more^ easily^ 
In  applying  his  theory  to  the  Gospel,   he  notes  the  defended  in 
difficulty  of  restoring  the  Western  text.     Conflations  Luke's 
and  assimilations  are  more  prevalent  in  the  Synoptic  Gospel. 
Gospels  than  elsewhere,  and   so   therefore  in  Luke. 
The  pure  Western  text  of  the   Latin   palimpsest   of 
rieury  and  the  Greek  Codex  Laudianus  are  unavail- 
able for  Luke.     Justin  ^lartyr  cannot  be  used.     The 
texts,  therefore,  upon  which  he  must  rely  —  the  Old 
Latin  and  Syriac  Versions,  Tatian,  Marcion,  the  Ferrar- 
Group  —  represent  a  mixed  type  of  text,  that  is,  give 
us  a  mixture  of  the  Western  or  Koman  and  the  non- 
Western  or  Antiochian.     Thus  we  are  left  largely  to 
the  Greek  of  Codex  Bezse  for  a  relatively  unmixed 
Western  text.     In  Acts,  the  characteristic  of  the  Bezan 
text  is  its  additions ;  in  Luke,  however,  it  is  its  omis- 
sions.^ 

In  Luke's  Gospel,  then,  Blass  begins  with  the  omis- 
sions, and  selects  as  test  cases  8  :  43 ;  10  :  41 ;  12  :  19 ; 
19  :  29 ;  and  concludes  that  the  abridgments  cannot 
be  explained  away  as  spurious,  and  that,  therefore,  as 
genuine,  they  are  evidence  of  two  editions.  Coming 
next  to  the  relatively  few  cases  of  insertion,  he  treats 
first  the  story  of  the  man  working  on  the  Sabbath 
(6:5),  and  notes  that  it  has  a  genuine  ring,  although 
indeed  no  Church  Father  records  this  tradition.^  The 
reason  that  Luke  omitted  the  story  in  his  edition  for 
Theophilus  was,  that  it  might  give  offence  to  Christian 
Jews,  while  the  Roman  readers  would  find  in  the  nar- 

1  Philology,  103,  144. 

2  On  the  Ferrar-Group,  see  J.  Rendel  Harris,  On  the  Origin 
of  the  Ferrar-Group^  1803. 

8  See  Ropes,  Die  Spriiche  Jesu,  S.  124-126. 


168 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


John  7 :  53- 
8 :  11  attrib- 
uted to 
Luke. 


Reception  of 

Blass'3 

theory. 


rative  no  occasion  of  stumbling.^  Similarly,  the  Fer- 
rar-Group  attributes  the  section  about  the  woman 
taken  in  adultery  (John  7  :  53-8  :  11)  to  Luke,  insert- 
ing it  after  Luke  21 :  38.  Blass,  however,  thinks  the 
section  should  be  put  two  verses  earlier,  and  after 
some  further  conjectures  notes  that  the  language  of 
the  section  is  Lucan.  The  reason  that  Luke  omitted 
in  his  copy  for  Theophilus,  and  inserted  in  the  copy 
for  Rome,  is  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  former  case. 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  Blass  is  not  so  confident 
either  of  his  restoration  of  the  text,  or  of  his  theory 
of  two  editions  in  the  case  of  the  Gospel,  as  he  is  in  the 
case  of  Acts.  He  admits  that  the  text  phenomena  in 
Luke  are  not  easily  solvable,  and  says  he  is  "  very  far 
from  pretending  this  solution  to  be,  as  it  were,  a  key 
which  unlocks  all  doors."  ^ 

The  theory  attracted  the  attention  of  scholars  imme- 
diately, and  has  found  favour  in  the  eyes  of  several 
critics,  as  Nestle,  Belser,  and  Salmon.  This  consent 
may  be  due,  as  Bousset  suggests,  to  apologetic  inter- 
ests. Zockler  and  Zahn  were  inclined  to  approve  it  for 
Acts,  though  not  for  the  Gospel.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  theory  was  contested  by  other  scholars.  Corssen, 
for  instance,  has  attempted  to  show  the  un-Lucan 
character  of  the  Roman  text,  and  Ramsay  thinks  the 
text  has  "  a  fatal  smoothness :  it  loses  the  rather  harsh 
but  very  individual  style  of  Luke,  and  it  neglects  some 
of  the  literary  forms  that  Luke  observed."  It  gives 
a  mixed  but  valuable  second-century  text,  shows  a 
second-century  interpretation  of  various  passages,  and 
adds  several  good  bits  of  information,  though  they 
were  not  written  by  Luke,  except  perhaps  in  a  few 
cases  (Expositor,  1897,  469).^ 

1  Evang.  Luc,  XLVI-XLVII.  2  phUology,  168. 

8  See  Blass,  Prcefatio  in  Lucam,  where  he  meets  some  of  the 
■objections.     E.  Nestle,  Einfuhrung  in  das  Griechische  Neue 


CODEX  BEZ^  169 

5.  Tlieory  of  Bernhardt  Weiss.  —  There  is  no  sturdier  Blass's 
opponent  of  the  theory  of  Blass  than  Professor  Weiss  poled^y^ 
of  Berlin.  In  his  study  of  the  Bezan  text  he  does  not  B.  Weiss, 
propose  to  examine  the  hypothesis  of  two  editions 
as  such,  but  rather  to  determine  whether  the  Western 
text  of  Acts  is  earlier  or  later  than  that  of  the  ancient 
majuscules.  His  theory  is  that  the  Western  text  has 
almost  no  authority  whatever.  In  emphasising,  there- 
fore, the  almost  complete  worthlessness  of  the  Western 
text,  he  tacitly  endeavours  to  shatter  the  hypothesis 
of  Blass.  Looking  carefully  at  all  negative  instances, 
and  weighing  the  evidence  of  the  majority  of  the 
variants,  Weiss  obtains  antecedent  probability  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  Western  readings.  The  usual 
corruptions  in  D  are  no  more  peculiar  to  D  than  to 
other  codices.  Moreover,  there  is  a  motive  discernible 
in  the  recasting  of  the  text,  namely,  to  change  pur- 
posely the  older  majuscules.  Now  of  two  texts,  the 
one  which  is  more  easily  explained  from  the  other  is 
secondary.  Thus  B,  far  from  having  variants  which 
are  Lucan,  is  rather  a  '' reflektierte  Nachbesserung" 
of    the   older    majuscules.      The   Western   and  non- 

Testament,'"  S.  100,  101.  J.  Belser  (R.  C),  Beitrdge  zur  Er- 
kldrung  der  Apostelgeschichte,  1897.  G.  Salmon,  Introduction 
to  the  New  Testament,  1897,  592  ff.  Ibid.,  So7ne  Thoughts  on 
the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Xeio  Testament,  1897.  W.  Bous- 
set,  Theologische  Bundschau,  1898,  I,  413.  O.  Zockler,  Sticdia 
Giyphisioaldensia,  1895,  S.  132  ff.  The.  Zahn,  Einleitung  in 
das  Neue  Testament,  1899,  II,  S.  338  ff.,  346.  0.  Zockler,  Be- 
weis  des  Glaubens,  1898,  S.  28-35.  Corssen,  Gott.  gel.  Am. 
1896,  S.  425  ff.  W.  M.  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller  and  the 
Roman  Citizen,  3d  ed.,  1897,  25.  Ibid.,  The  Church  in  the 
Soman  Empire,  3d  ed.,  1894,  151-165.  Also  Expositor,  1895, 
129  ff.,  212  ff.  ;  1897,  460-471. 

Against  Blass  see  also  Jiilicher,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Tes- 
tament, 1894,  S.  271.  H.  Holtzmann,  Th.  Litz.,  1896,  No.  3; 
1898,  col.  536-539.  W.  Bousset,  Theologische  Bundschau,  1898, 
I,  406-416. 


170  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

The  Western  Western  texts   are   not  independent  witnesses:    the 
Western'        former  depends  upon  the  latter.     The  changes,  to  be 
texts  not  in-  sure,  are  early,  arising  long  before  the  canonisation  of 
w^itnesses.      Acts.     They  do  not  appear,  with  slight  exceptions,  in 
the  speeches  of  Acts.     "  Nowhere  in  the  matter  of  the 
text  is  anything  essentially  changed,  or  a  new  point 
added  in  reference  to  the  movements  of  the  history." 
The  changes  themselves  are  not  uniform  in  character. 
Some  are  unique,  most  are  akin  to  the  changes  com- 
mon to  all  texts.     The  Western  readings  therefore 
have  no   independent   authority   whatever,  and    can 
certainly  not  be  attributed  to  one  hand  as  the  Blass 
theory  requires.^ 

The  objections  to  the  theory  of  Blass  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows:  (1)  Its  simplicity  is  really 
an  argument  against  it.  Phenomena  so  complex  de- 
mand a  more  complex  solvent  than  is  furnished  by  a 
single  hypothesis.  (2)  The  uniform  character  of  the 
variants  demanded  by  the  hypothesis  is  made  d  priori 
unlikely  by  the  striking  dissimilarity  of  the  AVestern 
text  of  Acts  from  that  of  Luke.  Moreover,  Blass  has 
not  proved  the  uniform  character  of  the  variants.  (3) 
The  motive  assigned  for  the  omission  in  the  copy  for 
n1/  Theophilus  and  the  insertion  in  the  copy  for  Roman 

readers  of  such  sections  as  that  of  the  man  working  on 
the  Sabbath,  or  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  —  the 
motive,  namely,  that  the  Jewish  Christians  would  be 
offended,  —  cannot  be  taken  seriously.  Why  are  not 
other  uncomfortable  words  of  Jesus  about  the  law 
omitted  in  the  copy  for  Theophilus  ?  (4)  The  motive 
likewise  for  abridging  one  copy  each  of  the  Gospel 
and  of  Acts,  namely,  that  the  author  found  his  work 
tedious,  cannot  be  considered  a  serious  argument.     (5) 

1  See  B.  Weiss,  "Der  Codex  D  in  der  Apostelgeschichte, 
1897,  Texte  nnd  Untersvchungen,  XVII.  Compare  "Die  Apos- 
telgeschichte," 1893,  Texte  nnd  Untersuchungen,  IX,  3,  4. 


CODEX  BEZ^  171 

The  text-phenomena  of  Luke  do  not  require  the  two- 
edition  hypothesis,  any  more  than  those  of  Mark  or 
Matthew  or  John.  Starting  with  the  variants  of 
Luke,  and  then  passing  over  to  Acts,  even  these 
unique  readings  in  Acts  may  be  explained  on  other 
grounds  more  successfully.  (6)  The  great  fault  is  the 
neglect  of  negative  instances.  Instead  of  starting  with 
a  few  brilliant  readings,  he  should  have  begun  with 
the  great  majority  of  ordinary  readings.  The  analogy 
of  the  phenomena  of  the  Western  text  as  a  whole 
should  have  been  the  basis  of  the  opinion  on  a  few 
brilliant  readings  in  the  Bezan  text  of  Acts.  Blass 
should  have  given  a  careful  and  systematic  study  to 
the  Western  texts  as  a  whole,  before  asserting  his 
theory  on  the  basis  chiefly  of  one  codex. 

6.  Theory  of  Westcott  and  Hort.  —  Westcott  and  Hort 
think  that  Tischendorf,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Sinaiticus,  and  without  definite  principles,  has  ad- 
mitted too  many  Western  readings  into  his  editions. 
They  feel  that  these  readings,  when  confronted  with 
their  rivals,  generate  a  sense  of  distrust,  which  dis- 
trust is  but  increased  upon  further  and  intimate  ac- 
quaintance. To  be  sure,  Codex  Bezae,  more  clearly 
than  any  other  extant  Greek  manuscript,  reveals  a 
type  of  text  most  widely  read  in  the  third,  and  prob- 
ably in  the  second  century;  but,  they  bid  us  notice, 
antiquity  and  purity  are  not  synonymous  terms.  The 
tendency  of  the  Western  texts  is  toward  fulness,  con- 
flation, in  which  tendency  they  stand  unrivalled.  The 
motive  in  all  this  is  apparent.  It  is  hard,  however,  to 
explain  omissions  in  a  type  of  text  whose  character- 
istic is  fulness.  In  comparing  the  non-Western  texts 
with  the  Western  texts  at  the  points  where  the  latter 
omit  and  the  former  retain,  we  are  led  to  the  hypothe- 
sis that  what  are  omissions  in  these  Western  texts  are 
interpolations  in  the  usually  trustworthy  non- Western 


172 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Westcott 
and  Hort 
midway  be- 
tween Blass 
and  Weiss 
in  estimate 
of  the 
Western 
text. 


Professor 
Salmon.    A 
text  at  Rome 
differing 
from  the 
Alexan- 
drian. 


texts.  Thus  only  one  class  of  phenomena  in  the 
Western  readings  can  claim  attention,  namely,  the 
omissions,  or,  more  correctly,  the  non-interpolations. 
The  theory  of  Westcott  and  Hort  is  the  theory  of 
Western  non-interpolations.  They  therefore  stand 
midway  between  Weiss  and  Blass  in  their  estimate  of 
the  Western  type  of  text.  But  have  they  given  suf- 
ficient prominence  to  Western  readings  ?  On  their 
principle,  a  small  handful  of  Western  authorities 
may,  at  times,  overthrow  the  combined  authority  of 
B  and  S,  while,  at  other  times,  B  holds  the  field  alone 
against  the  combined  armies  of  West  and  East.  This 
difficulty  has  led  to  the  warning  against  a  "  Westcott 
and  Hort  ab  omnibus  receptus." 

7.  Theory  of  Professor  Salmon. — The  Dublin  scholar 
thinks  that  Westcott  and  Hort  have  given  us  the  text 
as  read  in  Alexandria,  probably  in  the  third  century, 
and  possibly  before  the  end  of  the  second.  But  there 
existed  at  the  same  time  in  Eome  a  text  which  differed 
in  some  respects  from  the  Alexandrian  text.  The 
trouble  with  Dr.  Hort  is  that  he  does  not  admit  the 
possibility  of  an  independent  Western  tradition.^  It 
would  seem  as  if  he  were  under  the  influence  of  a  pre- 
conceived theory  as  to  the  existence  of  original  auto- 
graphs. But  suppose  there  are  editors  at  work  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  Can  we  speak  of  the  individual 
writings  of  the  individual  authors  in  the  light  of  the 
traces  of  the  secondary  character,  say  of  the  First  Gos- 
pel ?  ^  The  textual  critic  must  take  into  account  the 
Synoptic  Problem.  And  further,  suppose,  with  Blass, 
that  there  are  two  editions  of  the  Third  Gospel  and 
the  Acts.  Which  is  the  original  autograph  ?  "  If  we 
desire  a  text  absolutely  free  from  ambiguity,  we  desire 
what  God  has  never  been  pleased  to  give  His  church."  ^ 


1  Some  Thoughts^  etc. ,  66. 

^  Ibid.,  etc.,  130. 


•^Ibid.,  etc.,  105. 


CODEX  BEZM 


178 


Coming  now  to  the  theory  of  Blass,  Dr.  Salmon 
points  out  the  fact  that  the  documentary  evidence  is 
too  late  to  give  us  "  authentic  information  as  to  the 
circumstances  of  their  first  publication."^  There  is, 
therefore,  no  "  external  evidence  enabling  us  either  to  Hypothesis 
confirm  or  to  reject  the  hypothesis  of  a  double  edition."  edition  to\;e 
Internal  evidence  must  decide.^  Now,  although  the  decided  by 
reconstruction  of  the  Western  text  given  by  Blass  does  dence  onfy.^ 
not  commend  itself  in  toto  to  Salmon,  there  are,  never- 
theless, some  variations  which  rest  upon  the  authority 
of  Luke.'  Blass  has  made  out  a  good  case  for  Acts,* 
and  probably  a  similar  hypothesis  would  cover  the 
facts  in  the  Gospel.  But  the  dissimilarity  of  the  text- 
phenomena  in  the  Gospel  and  in  Acts,  and  the  inherent 
difficulties  in  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  arising  from 
early  conformations,  make  an  alternative  theory  to 
that  of  Blass  more  probable  for  the  Gospel,  namely, 
that  explanatory  readings  were  given  by  Luke  in 
Home  and  were  preserved  in  the  West.  There  was, 
however,  no  definite  written  text ;  otherwise  we  could 
reproduce  it  now.  Rather  the  explanatory  readings 
are  added  to  the  Alexandrian  text  as  of  coordinate  and 
equal  authority,  since  there  was  no  theory  of  verbal 
inspiration  to  molest  or  to  make  afraid.^  Thus  the 
Roman  text  differs  from  the  Alexandrian  as  a  second 
edition  of  a  book  differs  from  the  first.^  At  all  events, 
the  Western  variations  are  not  the  licentious  additions 
of  audacious  scribes,  but  many  of  them  represent  the 
form  in  which  the  Gospel  was  read  in  the  church  of 
Rome  in  apostolic  or  subapostolic  times.^ 

The  objective  summary  of  recent  opinion  upon  Codex 

1  Some  Thoughts,  etc.,  134.  *  Hid.,  etc.,  139. 

2  Compare  Hort,  Introduction,  177.       ^  Ibid.,  etc..  147-151. 
*  Some  Thoughts,  etc.,  137.  «  Ibid.,  etc.,  168. 

'  Ibid.,  etc.,  151.  See  also  G.  Salmon's  Introduc- 

tion to  the  New  Testament,  8tli  ed.,  1897,  692  ff. 


174 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Professor 
Harris  on 
the  Bezan 
text. 


Bezae  and  its  relatives  attempted  above  will,  I  think, 
enable  the  reader  to  appreciate  the  suggestive  remark 
of  Professor  Harris,  with  which  I  conclude  the  sketch. 
"  The  more  we  think  of  it,  the  more  complex  does  the 
Bezan  text  become.  It  has  passed  through  the  hands 
of  a  number  of  people  of  active  mind,  whose  remarks 
are  stratified  in  the  Western  text :  they  are  not  all  of 
them  S3'rians,  and  it  is  not  yet  even  proved  that  there 
are  no  Western  expansions  which  are  original.  The 
whole  history  of  the  text  requires  renewed  and  careful 
inquisition,  without  prejudice  in  favour  of  the  solvent 
power  of  a  single  hypothesis."  ^ 


Review  of 
the  history 
of  Textual 
Criticism  of 
the  New 
Testament. 


A  real 
advance. 


In  reviewing  the  history  of  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament  we  have  marked,  in  the  beginning,  the 
superstitious  reverence  for  the  text  which  opposed 
all  attempts  to  investigate  or  amend  it;  but,  with  a 
strange  inconsistency,  attached  itself,  not  to  the  Greek 
Original,  but  to  its  Latin  representative.  We  have 
marked  the  transference  of  the  same  superstition  to  a 
Greek  text  based  upon  a  few  late  and  inferior  manu- 
scripts, and  invested  with  a  factitious  authority  through 
the  audacity  of  a  clever  publisher.  We  have  marked 
the  slow  process  of  unseating  this  textual  idol,  the  reso- 
lute assertion  by  scholars  of  the  authority  of  the  most 
ancient  witnesses,  and  the  efforts  to  bring  the  New 
Testament  text  into  accordance  with  their  testimony. 
We  have  marked  the  formulation  of  textual  principles 
and  the  development  of  critical  methods. 

There  has  been  a  great  and  real  advance.  It  has 
come  to  be  accepted  that  Scripture  is  not  a  fetich,  but 
is  fairly  open,  like  other  literary  productions,  to  the 
same  critical  tests  which  are  applied  to  other  litera- 
ture, and  that  such  criticism,  so  far  from  implying 
irreverence,  is  one  of  the  highest  marks  of  respect  that 
can  be  shown  toward  the  Bible. 

1  Four  Lectures,  etc.,  89. 


GENERAL  REVIEW  175 

The  Textus  Receptiis  has  been  remanded  to  its 
proper  place  as  a  historical  monument,  and  has  been 
summaril}^  rejected  as  a  basis  for  a  correct  text. 

In  weighing  the  evidence  for  readings,  the  emphasis 
has  been  shifted  from  the  number  to  the  quality  of 
manuscripts.  In  other  words,  it  is  an  accepted  princi- 
ple that  manuscripts  are  to  be  weighed  and  not  counted. 

It  is  recognised  that  every  class  of  textual  facts  is 
to  be  taken  into  account ;  that  internal  evidence  is  to 
be  subordinated  to  external  evidence,  and  that  conclu- 
sions as  to  the  character  and  relative  importance  of 
manuscripts  are  to  be  reached  by  a  study  of  their 
affinities ;  in  other  words,  by  the  application  of  the 
genealogical  method. 

Still,  much  remains  to  be  done.  "Whoever  should  Much  still  to 
conclude,"  says  Dr.  Nestle,  "that  New  Testament 
criticism  has  reached  its  goal,  would  greatly  err.  As 
the  archaeologist  in  Olympia  or  Delphi  exhumes  the 
shattered  temples,  and  essays  to  recombine  the  frag- 
ments in  their  ancient  splendour,  so,  much  labour  is  still 
needed  before  all  the  stones  shall  have  been  collected, 
and  the  sanctuary  of  the  New  Testament  writings  re- 
stored to  its  original  form." 

The  noble  work  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  by  its  wide  The  work  ot 
range,  its  laborious  research  and  its  boldness,  has  com-  and^Hort 
manded  a  large  measure  of  assent,  but  it  cannot  be  not  final, 
said  to  be  decisive,  even  as  the  consensus  respecting  it 
is  by  no  means  universal.     There  is  some  danger  of 
Westcott  and  Hort's  text  coming  to  be  regarded  as  a 
second  Textus  Receptus.     It  has  taken  time  to  grasp 
their  principles  and  method.     Professor  Salmon  justly 
remarks  that  "the  foundations  of  their  system  are 
buried  out  of  sight  of  ordinary  readers  of  their  work. 
Their  theories  are  based  on  immense  inductions,  in  the 
course  of  which  they  must,  witli  enormous  labour,  have 
tabulated   comparative   lists   of  the   peculiarities    of 


176 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 


Results  from 
studies  of  D 
not  final. 


Activity  of 
special 
scholarship 
and  archae- 
ological re- 
search. 


manuscripts  or  groups  of  manuscripts."  Eighteen 
years,  however,  have  enabled  critics  to  digest,  and  to 
apprehend  their  processes  and  conclusions  as  a  whole, 
with  the  result  of  calling  forth  more  than  one  ringing 
challenge.  Their  theory  of  the  double  recension  of  the 
text  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  their  genea- 
logical nomenclature,  and  their  too  exclusive  reliance 
upon  the  testimony  of  B  and  b<  are  alike  the  subjects 
of  incisive  criticism. 

The  results  evolved  from  the  special  studies  of  Codex 
Bezse  are  alike  suggestive  and  promising,  but  cannot 
be  accepted  as  final. 

With  gratitude  for  the  substantial  gains,  both  in 
material  and  in  method,  since  the  appearance  of  Eras- 
mus's first  edition,  we  must  still  be  content  to  wait. 
Meanwhile,  accurate  special  scholarship  is  busy  in 
testing  the  old  positions,  exposing  w^eak  points,  or  de- 
tecting fresh  confirmations.  Archaeological  research 
is  diligent,  and  such  discoveries  as  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
the  Lewis  palimpsest,  and  the  Oxyrliynchus  fragments 
afford  promises  and  prophecies  of  other  discoveries 
which  may  lead  the  student  nearer  to  the  primitive 
sources  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  and  settle  many 
questions  which  are  still  in  dispute. 

Toward  one  result  the  course  of  textual  criticism 
appears  to  be  slowly  but  surely  moving  —  the  modifica- 
tion and,  in  part,  the  abandonment  of  the  idea  of  origi- 
nal autographs  as  an  object  of  search.  Whether  the 
theory  of  the  double  editions  of  Acts  and  Luke  be  vin- 
dicated or  not,  whatever  may  be  the  final  decision  con- 
cerning the  documents  represented  in  Acts,  enough 
has  been  developed  to  make  it  evident  that  different 
forms  of  a  New  Testament  document  may  be  due  to 
the  author  himself,  and  that  editorship  may  have  en- 
larged, modified,  or  changed  the  form  in  which  the 
document  originally  came  from  the  author's  pen. 


APPENDIX 

The  following  list  is  added  of  books  of  reference 
not  'elsewhere  mentioned. 

PALiEOGRAPHY 

V.  Gardthausen  :  Griechische  Palaeographie.     Leipzig,  1879. 
Fried.  Blass  :  Palaeographie,  BUcherwesen  und  Handschriften- 

kunde.     In  Miiller,  Handbuch  der  Mass.  Alterthumswissen- 

schaft.     2  Ausg.  Bd.  I.     Miinchen,  1892. 
W.  Wattenbach  :  Anleiiung  zur  griech.  Palaeographie.  2  Ausg. 

Leipzig,  1877. 
Ibid. :  ScripturcB  Grcecos  Specimina.     Berlin,  1883. 
Ibid,  and  A.  von  Velsen  :  Exempla  Codicum  Grcecorum  lift. 

minusc.  scriptorum.     Heidelberg,  1878.     Fol.     50  plates. 
Ibid.:   Schrifttafeln  zur  Geschichte  der  Griechischen  Schrift. 

1877. 
E.  A.  Bond  and  E.  M.  Thompson  :   Facsimiles  of  Ancient 

Manuscripts.   Palaeographical  Society  of  London,  1873-82. 
T.  W.  Allen:   Notes  on  Abbreviations  in  Greek  Manuscripts. 

With  facsimiles.     Oxford,  1889. 
W.  A.  Copinger:  The  Bible  and  its  Transmission.     With  28 

facsimiles.     London,  1897. 

Autographs 

J.  R.  Harris:  New  Testament  Autographs.  Supplement  to 
American  Journal  of  Philology,  No.  12.     Baltimore,  1882. 

Critical  Editions  of  the  Greek  Testament 

C.  Tischendorf :  Novum  Testamentum  Greece.  Editio  Octava 
Critica  Major.  3  vols.  Prolegomena,  IH,  by  C.  R. 
Gregory.     Leipzig,  1869-94. 

A  small  edition  of  the  text  of  the  8th  ed.  with  a  selection 
of  readings,  1878. 

N  177 


178  TEXTUAL   CRITICISM 

Ed.  by  O.  von  Gebhardt,  with  variants  of  Tregelles  and 
Westcott  and  Hort.     5th  ed.     1891. 

B.  F.  Westcott  and  F.  J.  A.  Hort :  The  New  Testament  in  the 
Original  Greek.  2  vols.  American  edition,  with  an  Intro- 
duction by  Philip  Schaff.     New  York.     3d  ed.     1883. 

E.  Palmer :  The  Greek  Testament  with  the  Readings  adopted 
by  the  Revisers  of  the  Authorised  Version,  and  with  Refer- 
ences in  the  Margin  to  Parallel  Passages  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1882.  Very  hand- 
some tj'^pography.  An  edition  in  smaller  type,  with  a 
wide  margin  for  notes. 

F.  H.  A.  Scrivener  :  Novum  Testainenium.  Textus  Stephanici. 
With  various  readings  of  Beza,  the  Elzevirs,  Lachmann, 
Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort,  and  the  re- 
visers. Cambridge  and  London,  1887.  New  readings  at 
the  foot  of  the  page,  and  the  displaced  readings  of  the 
text  in  heavier  tj^pe. 

W.  Sanday  :  Lloyd's  edition  of  Mill's  text,  with  parallel  ref- 
erences, Eusebian  Canons,  etc.,  and  three  Appendices 
(published  separately),  containing  variants  of  Westcott 
and  Hort,  and  a  selection  of  important  readings  with 
authorities,  together  with  readings  from  Oriental  Ver- 
sions, Memphitic,  Armenian,  and  Ethiopic.    Oxford,  1889. 

R.  F.  Weymouth  :  The  Resultant  Greek  Testament.  Readings 
of  Stephen  (1550),  Lachmann,  Tregelles,  Lightfoot,  and 
(for  the  Pauline  Epistles)  Ellicott.  Also  of  ALford  and 
Weiss  for  Matthew,  the  Basle  edition,  Westcott  and  Hort, 
and  the  revisers.     London,  1892. 

J.  Baljon  :  Novum  Testamentum  Gr(Ece  prcesertim  in  usum  stu- 
diosorum.  Groningae,  1898.  W.  Bousset  (Theologische 
Rundschau,  July,  1898,  S.  416)  characterises  it  as  often  a 
bad,  inaccurate,  unsystematic  excerpt  from  Tischendorf's 
8thMaj.  The  readings  of  Persian,  Ethiopic,  and  Armenian 
Versions  are  untrustworthy,  even  in  Tischendorf. 

E.  Nestle  :  Testamentum  Novum  Greece  cum  Apparatu  Critico. 
Stuttgart,  1898.  Will  not  save  the  use  of  editions  with 
the  manuscript  variants. 

F.  Schjott :  Novum  Testamentum  Greece  ad  fdem  Testium  Ve- 
tustissimorum  cognovit.  Adds  various  readings  from  the 
Elzevirs  and  Tischendorf. 


APPENDIX  179 

Fried.  Blass  :  Acta  Apostoloruni  sive  Luccead  Theophilum  Liber 
Alter  secundum  for  mam  qucE  videtur  Romanam.  Leipzig, 
1896. 

Ibid.  :  Evangelium  secundum  Lucam  sive  Lucce  ad  Theophilum 
Liber  Prior  secundum  Formam  quce  videtur  Romanam.  Leip- 
zig, 1897. 

Convenient  Manuals 

Eb.  Nestle :  Einf'dhrung  in  das  griechische  Neue  Testament. 
Gottingen,  1897. 

C.  E.  Hammond:  Outlines  of  Textual  Criticism  applied  to  the 
New  Testament.     5th  rev.  ed.     Oxford,  1890. 

F.  G.  Kenyon  :  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts.  3d 
ed.     London,  1897. 

P.  Schaff :  A  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  and  the  Eng- 
lish Version.     3d  rev.  ed.     New  York,  1888. 

B.  B.  Warfield:  An  Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of 
the  New  Testament.     New  York,  1887. 

E.  C.  Mitchell :  The  Critical  Handbook  of  the  Greek  New  Tes- 
tament. New  edition.  New  York,  1896.  Useful  catalogue 
of  manuscripts. 

A  catalogue  of  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
prepared  by  the  late  Dr.  Isaac  H.  Hall,  may  be  found 
in  Schaff's  Companion. 


INDEX 


Abbot,  Ezra,  12.  67, 120, 123, 

143 
Accents,  8,  19 
Achelis,  H.,  41 
Adler,  J.  G.  C,  98 
Alcala,  49,  50 
Aldus  Manutius,  48,  53 
Alford,  H.,  138 
Alter,  F.  K.,  98 
Ambrose,  40 

Ammonian  sections,  9,  10,  21, 
Ammonius,  9,  10 
Apostolic  Fathers,  38 
Aristion,  35 
Athos,  Mt.,  97,  136 
Augusti,  104 
Autographs,  2,  3,  4,  77,  176 

Baethgen,  33 
Barberini  readings,  67 
Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  16,  17 
Bartolocci,  130 
Bebb,  L.  J.  M.,  41 
Belser,  J,,  168,  169 
Bengel,  J.  A.,  76,  87-89,  90 
Bensley,R.  L.,  31,  33 
Bentley.  Richard,  69,  70,  139 

Proposals  of,  70-75 
Berger,  S.,  28 
Berlin  Academy,  37 
Bertheau,  C,  93,  129 
Beza,  Theo.,  58,  63, 168 
Birch,  A.,  98,  130 
Blass,  F.,  159, 164-168 
Bloomfield,  S.  T.,  115 
Bodleian  Library,  23,  34 
Bonwetsch,  G.,  41 
Bosworth  and  Waring,  3§ 


129, 


22 


Bousset,  W.,  164, 169 

Breathings,  8,  19 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  159 

British  Museum,  14,  19,  28,  34 

British  and  Foreign  Bible  Soci- 
ety, 23 

Burgon,  J.  W.,  41,  61,  119-121, 
137,  141,  142,  152,  158 

Burk,  P.  D.,  89,  90 

Burkitt,  F.  C,  27,  31,  33 


Cambridge  University  Library, 

22 
Canons  of  Criticism 

Bengel,  88 

Griesbach,  102 

Lachmann,  112 

Scrivener,  141 

Tischendorf,  125-129 

Tregelles,  132-134 
Capitals  in  manuscripts,  20 
Chapters,  division  into,  12 
Chase,  F.  H.,  162 
Christian  VIL,  98 
Chrysostom,  148, 149 
Clement  of  Rome,  Epistle  of,  20, 

38 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  37,  41, 

148,  161 
Clericus,  J.,  165. 
Codices 

Alexandrinus,  11,  19,  64 

Amiatinus,  114,  131, 136 

Basilianus,  14,  135 

Bez»,  14,  22,  62,  157-174,  176 

Boernerianus,  99 

Borgianus,  23 

Claromoiltanus,  14,  22 

m 


182 


INDEX 


Codices, 

Colbertinus,  136 

Dublinensis,  23 

Ephraemi,  15,  21 

Friderico  Augustanus,  117 

Fuldensis,  113 

Laudianus,  22,  167 

Monacensis,  135 

Montfortianus,  54,  66 

Mutinensis,  135 

Nanii,  135 

Regius,  23 

Rhodiensis,  49 

Sangallensis,  23 

Sinaiticus,  16,  117-121, 138 

Vaticanus,  18,  71,  130,  138,  141 

Zacynthius,  23, 136 
Colinaeus,  S.,  55 
Comparative  Criticism,  132 
Complutensian  Bible,  49 
Conflation,  147,  160, 167 
Cook,  F.  C,  116,  121 
Coptic  Language,  34 
Corssen,  169 
Cozza,  19 

Credner,  K.  A.,  163,  164 
Curcellaeus,  S.,  66 
Cureton,  28 
Curetonian  Syriac  Version,  28, 

29,  32 
Cursive  manuscripts,  12,  13,  14 
Cyprian,  41,  161 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  148 

Damasus,  Pope,  26 
Davidson,  S.,  116 
Deissmann,  G.  A.,  128 
Dclitzsch,  F,  51,  53,  55 
Didymus  of  Alexandria,  148 
Diodorus  of  Antioch,  148 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  148 
Dobbin,  O.  T.,  55 
Documents, 

Age  of,  83 

Classification  of,  70,  85,  125 

Genealogy  of,  86 
Ace.  to  Bengel,  89 
Ace.  to  Griesbach,  101 


Documents,  genealogy  of. 

Ace.  to  Lachmann,  111,  112 
Ace.  to  Scholz,  107 
Ace.  to  Semler,  93 
Ace.  to  Tischendorf ,  123 
Ace.  to  Westcott  and  Hort, 
147 
Homogeneity  of,  85 
Studied  as  wholes,  82,  84,  86 
Doedes,  J.  I.,  116 
Dublin,  Trinity  College  Library, 
23,54 

Eadie,  J.,  59 
Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  106 
Elzevirs,  60 
Epiphanius,  43 
Erasmus,  48-55 
Errors,  textual,  4,  6,  81 
Eusebius,  10,  11,  41 

Canons  of,  10, 11, 12, 17,  21,  22 
Euthalius,  9,  12 
Ewald,  P.,  164 

Fell,  J.,  67,  69 
Ferrar-group,  167, 168 
Fleck,  135 
Frame,  J.  E.,  157 
Fritzsche,  D.  F.,  28,  47 
Froben,  51,  53 
Froude,  J.  A.,  55 

Gardthausen,  V.,  121 

Gelasius  I.,  45,  105 

Geneva  Bible,  58 

Gerhard  von  Maestricht,  69,  90 

German  Bible,  47 

Goetze,  I.  M.,  51 

Green,  T.  S.,  143 

Gregory,  C.  R.,  16,  75,  109,  115, 

116,  131,  139,  144,  165 
Griesbach,  J.  J.,  96,  9^104,  162 
Grotius,  Hugo,  60,  63 
Groups  of  New  Testament  Books, 

14 
Gwilliam,  G.  H.,  33,  34 

Hagenbach,  C.  R.,  93 
Hahn,  104,  115 


INDEX 


183 


Hall,  I.  H.,  33 

Hammond,  C.  E.,  5 

Harmonies  of  the  Grospels,  9 

Harnack,  A.,  33 

Harris,  J.  R.,  12,  30,  31,  32,  33, 

34,  55,  66,  121,  162,  163,  164, 

174 
Harwood,  E.,96 
Hefele,  C.  I.,  51 
Hermas,  "  Pastor  "  of,  16,  17 
Hesychius,  44,  105,  123 
Hill,  J.  H.,  33,  45 
Hippolytus,  41,  148 
Hodgkin,T.,35 
Holtzmann,  H.,  169 
Home,  T.  H.,  115 
Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  7,  23,  55, 104, 154, 

158,  101. 165 
Hoskier,  H.  C,  55,  58,  62 
Hug,  J.  L.,  44,  105 
Hugo,  Cardinal,  12 

Ignatius,  38 

Inspiration,  3 

Intrinsic  probability,  78,  79,  81, 

83,84 
Irenaeus,  39,  41,  43, 148, 158,  161 

Jerome,  26, 41, 44, 45, 105, 113, 114 

Julicher,  A.,  169 

Justin  Martyr,  37, 41, 148, 161, 167 

Kelly,  W.,  143 
Kennedy,  B.  H.,  144 
Kennedy,  H.  A.  A.,  128 
Ke0dXaia,  12,  18,  21,  22 
Kipling,  T.,  99,  159 
Knapp,  104 
Koij't;  cKSoais,  105 

Lachmann,  C,  110-115 
Langton,  S.,  12 
Laurence,  R.,  104 
Laurentian  Library,  114 
Lectionaries,  15 
Le  Degeorge,  59 
Lee,  Ed.,  53 
Leo  X.,  48,  50 


Lewis,  Mrs.  A.,  29-31,  34 
Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  35,  165 
Lucar,  Cyril,  20,  64 
Lucas  Brugensis,  59,  63 
Lucian  of  Antioch,  44,  105, 123 

Mace,  W.,  75 
Mai,  Cardinal,  19 
Manuscripts,  8-23 
Marcion,  39,  43, 161, 167 
Marker,  104 

Matthaei,  C.  F.,  96,  97,  99,  136 
Mazarin  Bible,  47 
McClellan,  J.  B.,  143 
Methodius,  148 
Mico.  130 
Middleton,  C,  74 
Mill,  J.,  6,67,  68,  162 
Miller,  E.,  61,  140 
Mitchell,  E.  C,  41 
Moldenhauer,  D.  G.,  98,  99 
Monk,  J.  H.,  69,  75 
Montanus,  B.,  59 
Muralt,  E.  de,  116 

Nestle,  Eb.,  6,  32,  36,  55,  59,  76, 

90,  159,  168,  175 
Nicoll,  W.  R.,  62 
Norton,  A.,  116 

Origen,  39,  41,  44,  105,  123,  148, 

149,  161 
Owen,  J.,  66 
Oxyrhyncus  fragments,  176 

Palimpsests,  15, 21, 23, 29,  32, 176 

Palmer,  E.,  155 

Paris,  National  Library  of,  15, 21, 

22,23 
Patristic  quotations,  36-41 
Peshitto  Version,  28,  32 
Peter,  Gospel  of,  176 
Plantin,  Chr.,  59 
Polycarp,  38 
Polyglot  Bibles 

Antwerp,  49,  69 

Paris,  49,  60 

Walton's,  64 


184 


INDEX 


Person,  R.,  5 

Porter,  T.  S.,  116 

Printing,  application  to  the  Bible, 

46 
Psalms  of  Solomon,  20 
Punctuation  of  manuscripts,  9, 

20,21 
Purist  controversy,  94 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  168,  169 
Readings,  various,  6,  7,  43 
Recensions,  92 
Reiche,  G.,  116 
Resch,  A.,  163,  164 
Reuss,  E.,  42,  55,  66,  69 
Revisers  of  1881, 154 
Robinson,  Ed.,  104 
Ronsch,  H.,  27 
Rooses,  M.,  59 
Ropes,  J.  H.,  164 

Salmon,  G.,  32,  44,  104,  155,  168, 

169,  172,  175 
Samson,  G.  W.,  105 
Sanday,  W.,  36,  41,  56,  120,  155 
Schaff,  P.,  5,  106,  118,  129,  143, 

152 
Scholz,  J.  M.  A.,  106-109 
Schott,  104 

Scribes,  errors  of,  4,  5,  80 
Scrivener,  F.  H.  A.,  7,  23,  54,  61, 

75,  109,  115,  116, 121, 122, 129, 

139-142,  152,  154,  155,  159 
Semler,  J.  S.,  92,  93 
Septuagint,  16,  17,  18,  20 
Sepulveda,  53 
Simon,  Richard,  64 
St.  Catherine,  convent  of,  16,  29, 

34,  117,  118 
St.  Gall,  monastery  of,  23 
St.  Petersburg,  Imperial  Library 

at,  16 
Stephen,  Robert,  56,  60,  70,  72 
Editions  of  New  Testament,  56, 

57,64 
Stevens,  H.,  66 
Stichometry,  9 
Stunica,  J.  L.,  48,  53 


Tatian,  32,  33,  45,  128, 167 
TertuUian,  39,  41,  43 
Text, 
Age  of,  77,  83 
Corruptions  of,  41,  43 
Definition  of,  1 
Purity  of,  83 
Textus  Receptus,  60-62,  64,  70, 

96, 104, 106, 108,  119,  138, 140, 

175 
Theile,  104,  115 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  148 
Tholuck,  A.,  93 
Tischendorf,  C,  16,  19,  21,  42, 

117-129 
T^rXoi,  11 
Tittmann,  104 
Todd,  H.  J.,  66 
Toinard,  Nich.,  69 
Trabaud,  H.,  159 
Transcriptional  evidence,  78,  79, 

81,  83,  84,  88 
Tregelles,  S.  P.,  50,  51,  75,  108, 

115,  126,  129,  130-137 
Tychsen,  O.  G.,  98,  99 
Tyler,  A.  W.,  144 

Ulfilas,  35 

Uncial  manuscripts,  8, 12, 14 

Valentinians,  39 

Valesian  readings,  65 

Vatican  Library,  19,  33,  50, 63, 67 

Vercellone,  19 

Versions  of  the  New  Testament, 

24-35 
Vienna  Academy,  36 
Vienna,  Imperial  Library  of,  98 
Volbeding,  J.  E.,  129 
Von  Gebhardt,  O.,  12,  16,  104, 

114,  121, 122,  129,  136,  159 
Vulgate, 

Alcuin,  27 

Clementine,  27,  49,  70,  72 

First  publication  of,  47 

Jerome,  26,  45,  70. 

Manuscripts  of,  collated,  71 

Supremacy  of,  46 


INDEX 


185 


Walton,  B.,  64,  65 
Walton's  Polyglot,  64r-66,  68 
Ward,  W.  H.,  144 
Warfield,  B.  B.,  6 
Wecheliau  readings,  65 
Weiss,  B.,  62,  157,  169-171 
Wells,  Ed.,  69 
Westcott,  B.  F.,  45,  59 
Westcott  and  Hort,  145-154,  171, 

175 
Wetstein,  J.  J.,  21,  50,  90-92,  95. 

162 
Whiston,  W.,  159 


Willems,  A.,  62 

Wiseman,  Cardinal,  25 

Woide,  99 

Wordsworth,  White  and  Sanday, 

27,  56,  75 
Wiirttemburgian  Bible  Society, 

62 

Ximenes  de  Cisneros,  48 

Zahn,  Th.,  32, 165, 169 
Ziegler,  28 
Zockler,  O.,  169 


New  Testament   Handbooks 


EDITED   BY 

SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  Interpretation, 
University  of  Chicago 

Arrangements  are  made  for  the  following  volumes,  and  the  publishers 
will,  on  request,  send  notice  of  the  issue  of  each  volume  as  it  appears  and 
each  descriptive  circular  sent  out  later;  such  requests  for  information 
should  state  whether  address  is  permanent  or  not :  — 

The  History  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 

New  Testament 
Prof.  Marvin  R.   Vinxent,  Professor  of  New  Testament   Exegesis, 
Union  Theological  Seminary.  \^Now  ready. 

Professor  Vincent's  contributions  to  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  rank  him 
among  the  first  American  exegetes.  His  most  recent  publication  is  "  A  Critical 
and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  to  Philemon  " 
{Interttationai  Critical  Commentary'),  which  was  preceded  by  a  "  Students' 
New  Testament  Handbook,"  "  Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament,"  and 
others. 

The  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament 

Prof.  Henry  S.  Nash,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Cambridge  Divinity  School. 

Of  Professor  Nash's  "  Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience,"  The  Outlook  said:  "  The 
results  of  Professor  Nash's  ripe  thought  are  presented  in  a  luminous,  compact, 
and  often  epigrammatic  style.  The  treatment  is  at  once  masterful  and  helpful, 
and  the  book  ought  to  be  a  quickening  influence  of  the  highest  kind;  it  surely 
will  establish  the  fame  of  its  author  as  a  profound  thinker,  one  from  whom  we 
have  a  right  to  expect  future  inspiration  of  a  kindred  sort." 

Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  B.  WiSNER  Bacon,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation, 
Yale  University. 

Professor  Bacon's  works  in  the  field  of  Old  Testament  criticism  include  "  The 
Triple  Tradition  of  Exodus,"  and  "  The  Genesis  of  Genesis,"  a  study  of  the 
documentary  sources  of  the  books  of  Moses.  In  the  field  of  New  Testament 
study  he  has  published  a  number  of  brilliant  papers,  the  most  recent  of  which  is 
"  The  Autobiography  of  Jesus,"  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology. 

The  History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Palestine 

Prof.  Shailer  Mathews,  Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and 
Interpretation,  The  University  of  Chicago.  \^Nou>  ready. 

The  Congregatioftalist  says  of  Prof.  Shailer  Mathews's  recent  work,  "  The  Social 
Teaching  of  Jesus"  :  "Re-reading  deepens  the  impression  that  the  author  is 
scholarly,  devout,  awake  to  all  modern  thought,  and  yet  conservative  and  pre- 
eminently sane.  If,  after  reading  the  chapters  dealing  with  Jesus'  attitude 
toward  man,  society,  the  family,  the  state,  and  wealth,  the  reader  will  not  agree 
with  us  in  this  opinion,  we  greatly  err  as  prophets." 


The  Life  of  Paul 

Prof.  Rush  Rhees,  President  of  the  University  of  Rochester. 

Professor  Rhees  is  well  known  from  his  series  of  "  Inductive  Lessons  "  contributed 
to  the  Sunday  School  Times.  His  "  Outline  of  the  Life  of  Paul,"  privately 
printed,  has  had  a  flattering  reception  from  New  Testament  scholars. 

The  History  of  the  Apostolic  Age 

Dr.  C.  W,  VoTAw,  Instructor   in    New  Testament    Literature,  The 
University  of  Chicago. 

Of  Dr.  Votaw's  "  Inductive  Study  of  the  Founding  of  the  Christian  Church,"  Modern 
Church,  Edinburgh,  says:  "No  fuller  analysis  of  the  later  books  of  the  New 
Testament  could  be  desired,  and  no  better  programme  could  be  offered  for  their 
study,  than  that  afforded  in  the  scheme  of  fifty  lessons  on  the  Founding  0/ the 
Christian  Church,  by  Clyde  W.  Votaw.  It  is  well  adapted  alike  for  practical 
and  more  scholarly  students  of  the  Bible." 

The  Teaching  of  Jesus 

Prof.  George  B.  Stevens,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale 
University. 

Professor  Stevens's  volumes  upon  "  The  Johannine  Theology,"  "  The  Pauline  The- 
ology," as  well  as  his  recent  volume  on  "  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament^" 
have  made  him  probably  the  most  prominent  writer  on  biblical  theology  in 
America.     His  new  volume  will  be  among  the  most  important  of  his  works. 

The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

Prof.  E.  P.  Gould,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Interpretation,  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

Professor  Gould's  Commentaries  on  the  Gospel  of  Mark  (in  the  International  Criti- 
cal Commentary)  and  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  (in  the  Afnerican  Com- 
mentary) are  critical  and  exegetical  attempts  to  supply  those  elements  which 
are  lacking  in  existing  works  of  the  same  general  aim  and  scope.  [In  Prepara- 
tion."^ 

The  Teaching  of  Jesus  and  Modern  Social  Problems 

Prof.  Francis  G.  Peabody,  Professor   of  Christian  Ethics,  Harvard 
University. 

Professor  Peabody's  public  lectures,  as  well  as  his  addresses  to  the  students  of 
Harvard  University,  touch  a  wide  range  of  modem  problems.  The  many  read- 
ers of  his  "Mornings  in  the  College  Chapel"  and  his  published  studies  upon 
social  and  religious  topics,  will  welcome  this  new  work. 

The  History  of  Christian  Literature  until  Eusebius 

Prof.  J.  W.  Platner,  Professor   of   Early  Church  History,  Harvard 

University. 

Professor  Platner's  work  will  not  only  treat  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian 
writers,  but  will  also  treat  of  the  history  of  the  New  Testament  Canon. 

OTHERS    TO    FOLLOW 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


The  Social  Teachings  of  Jesus 

An  Essay  in  Christian  Sociology 


BY 


SHAILER    MATHEWS,  A.M. 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  Interpretation  in 
the  University  of  Chicago 


i2mo.    Cloth.    $1.50 

Outlook  : 

"  Such  a  study  is  sure  to  be  useful,  and  if  the  reader  sometimes  feels 
that  the  Jesus  here  presented  has  the  spirit  of  which  the  world  for  the 
most  part  approves  rather  than  that  which  brings  its  persecution,  he 
will  with  renewed  interest  turn  to  the  words  of  Jesus  as  narrated  in  the 
four  Gospels." 

Christian  Index  : 

"  We  commend  Professor  Mathews's  book  to  all  interested  in  matters 
sociological,  exegetical,  and  to  all  Christians  who  desire  to  know  the 
will  of  their  Lord  and  Master." 

Congregationalist : 

"  The  author  is  scholarly,  devoyt,  awake  to  all  modern  thought,  and 
yet  conservative  and  preeminently  sane." 

The  Evangel : 

"  Professor  Mathews  gives  the  thoughtful  reader  a  veritable  feast  in 
this  essay  in  Christian  Sociology.  It  is  well  thought  out  and  carefully 
written.  ...  It  is  surely  an  able  book,  worthy  of  careful  perusal,  and 
gives  promise  of  exerting  a  permanent  influence  upon  Christian  thought 
and  Ufe." 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience. 

BY 

HENRY  SYLVESTER  NASH, 

Professor  in  the  Episcopal  Theological  School, 
Cambridge,  Mass. 

THE  RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  CHRISTIAN- 
ITY  IN   EUROPE  AND  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 

Crown  8vo.    Cloth.    Price  $1.50. 


THE  OUTLOOK. 

"  To  the  world's  stock  of  good  books  Professor  Nash  has  added  one 
which  is  not  the  work  of  a  clever  summarizer  only,  but  that  of  a  clear 
and  forceful  originator.  Perhaps  not  since  the  publication  of  Mr.  Kidd's 
volume  has  a  more  genuinely  popular  sociological  work  appeared.  ,  .  . 

The  results  of  Professor  Nash's  ripe  thought  are  presented  in  a 
luminous,  compact,  and  often  epigrammatic  style.  The  treatment  is  at 
once  masterful  and  helpful,  and  the  book  ought  to  be  a  quickening 
influence  of  the  highest  kind;  it  surely  will  establish  the  fame  of  its 
author  as  a  profound  thinker,  one  from  whom  we  have  a  right  to  expect 
future  inspiration  of  a  kindred  sort.  .  .  . 

Through  a  multitude  of  original  and  brilliant  metaphors,  similes, 
and  illustrations,  succeeding  one  another  sometimes  in  almost  bewilder- 
ing number.  Professor  Nash  leads  us  step  by  step  in  the  retrospect  of 
the  history  of  man's  individualization.  .  .  ." 

NEW  UNITY. 

"  The  book  is  a  novelty.  It  is  an  interesting  experiment.  It  is  worth 
writing  and  therefore  worth  the  reading.  Professor  Nash  undertakes 
to  demonstrate  the  moral  thread  in  history.  He  follows  this  moral  line 
alone.  It  is  in  order  to  show  the  rise  and  growth  of  the  social  con- 
science. .  .  .  The  style  of  the  book  is  crisp;  but  it  is  never  dull." 
E.  P.  P. 

THE  CRITIC. 

"The  pages  glitter  with  bright  sayings;  there  are  many  attractive 
passages.  The  book  is  more  than  a  tacit  protest  against  the  material- 
istic explanation  of  history." 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY, 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,   NEW  YORK. 
I 


Ethics   and  Revelation 


BY 


HENRY  S.  NASH 


Professor  in  the  Episcopal  Theological  School  at  Cambridge; 
Author  of"  Genesis  of  the  Social  Conscience" 


i2mo.    Cloth.    $1.50 


Nashville  Banner : 

"The  author  goes  into  the  work  with  an  earnestness, 
breadth,  and  intelligence  that  gives  great  interest  to  what 
he  has  to  say." 

Charleston  News  and  Courier: 

"  The  value  and  significance  of  Professor  Nash's  lectures 
lie  chiefly  in  the  advanced  ground  which  he  takes  up  with 
regard  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible  and  the  Church  in  the 
matter  of  rehgious  and  social  ethics.  He  begins  by  the 
assertion  that  the  Bible  marks  out  the  road  along  which 
conscience  must  travel  if  it  would  treat  our  life  on  earth 
with  abiding  seriousness.  But  he  is  careful  to  show  that 
the  Bible  should  be  seen  and  regarded  in  the  light  of 
history." 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1012  01197   3833 


Date  Due 


